---

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

            Thursday, June 10, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 113

                            Headlines

BANK OF AMERICA: MDL 2138 Complaint Seeks Nationwide Worker Class
CARMEL ENERGY: Suit Against Directors Survives Motion to Dismiss
CBS CORP: Plaintiffs to File Amended Securities Suit in New York
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Court Dismisses Four Purported Class Actions
CENTURY ALUMINUM: USWA Preliminary Injunction Motion Pending

DEAN FOODS: Summary Judgment Motion Still Pending in Tenn. Suit
DEAN FOODS: Faces Second Antitrust Complaint in Vermont
DEAN FOODS: "Indirect Purchasers" Suit in Tennessee Still Stayed
DIRECTV INC: 11th Cir. Says Subscriber Arbitration Unenforceable
FARMERS AUTOMOBILE: Argues Workers Not Entitled to Overtime Pay

GOOGLE INC: Says No Connection Between Patent & Wi-Fi Snooping
HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
HUDSON VALLEY: Credit Union Sues N.Y. to Determine Tax's Validity
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Action Suits Follow April 30 Recall
KELLOGG CO: FTC Snaps Cereal Maker for Misleading Claims

KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Chinese Drywall Risks May Have Been Discussed
LOWER MERION: Legal Fees in Webcam Spying Case Approach $1 Mil.
MEMC ELECTRONIC: Consolidated Mo. Suit Dismissed; Appeal Pending
MEMC ELECTRONIC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Jones" Suit
MERCK FROSST: Canadian Non-Profit Exploring Fosamax Class Action

PARKER HANNIFIN: Settlement in Consolidated Suit Gets Court Nod
PITNEY BOWES: "Rine" Plaintiffs Rehearing Petition Denied
PITNEY BOWES: Defends Securities Violation Suit in Connecticut
POWER BALANCE: Accused in N.J. Suit of Deceptive Advertising
SUNTRUST BANKS: Seeks to Dismiss Suits by Former 1031 Customers

SUNTRUST BANKS: "Zisholtz" Suit Dismissed by Georgia Court
SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss Suit over ATM Fees Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend Suit over Overdraft Fees
SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend "Bailey" Suit in Louisiana
SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit Pending

SUNTRUST BANKS: STRH Remains a Defendant in Lehman-Related Suit
SUNTRUST BANKS: Seeks Dismissal of Suit over Sale of TRUPs
SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss "Waterford" Suit Still Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
SYGENTA CORP: Hearing Today in Madison County Atrazine Litigation

TENNESSEE GAS: Appeal Deadline on "Will Price" Suit Has Passed
TOMOTHERAPY INC: Accused in Wis. Suit of Misleading Shareholders
TOYOTA MOTOR: Shareholders Vie for Lead-Plaintiff Role
UNITED STATES: Filipino WWII Vets Sue Over Benefit Eligibility
UNITED STUDIOS: School Sued for Failing to Pay Minimum Wage

VACATION CHARTERS: Class Certified in Pa. for 275 Former Workers

                            *********

BANK OF AMERICA: MDL 2138 Complaint Seeks Nationwide Worker Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports that In re Bank of America
Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2138;
Master Docket No. 10-md-02138 (D. Kan.), consolidates 12 lawsuits
filed on behalf of employees in California, Florida, Kansas,
Texas and Washington, and now seeks nationwide class-action
status on behalf of employees at Bank of America retail branches
and call centers over the past three years.

George Hanson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the case could
eventually cover more than 180,000 workers, based on information
provided by the bank. That could lead to a recovery in the
"hundreds of millions" of dollars, assuming a typical employee
was deprived of $1,000 to $2,000 in pay, he said.

According to the 44-page complaint, the largest U.S. bank by
assets requires employees to work in excess of eight hours a day
or 40 hours a week, yet fails to pay them both for overtime and
for all straight time worked.

The complaint also accuses Bank of America of requiring employees
to work during unpaid breaks, failing to provide meal and rest
breaks, and failing to timely pay terminated employees for earned
wages and accrued vacation time.

"Bank of America enjoys millions of dollars in ill-gained profits
at the expense of its hourly employees," violating either the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act or various state labor laws, the
complaint said.

Shirley Norton, a Bank of America spokeswoman, said the
Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank would defend against the
lawsuit, and had comprehensive policies and training to ensure
compliance with all federal and state wage and hour laws.

Bank of America as of March 31 employed 283,914 people worldwide,
and operated 5,939 U.S. branches.

The federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in April
had directed that the 12 original cases be combined.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status, a halt to the alleged
illegal conduct, compensatory and punitive damages and other
remedies.


CARMEL ENERGY: Suit Against Directors Survives Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida declined to dismiss a securities
fraud lawsuit brought by a purchaser of shares in Carmel Energy,
Inc., against the company's directors.  Judge Torres rejected the
defendants' contentions about insufficient service of process and
the Court's lack of personal jurisdiction.  A copy of the Court's
Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss dated June 4, 2010,
in Hochuli v. Delgado, et al., Case NO. 09-cv-23225 (S.D. Fla.),
is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100604a11

Judge Torres directs the Defendants to file their answers to the
complaint by June 18, 2010, if they haven't already.  


CBS CORP: Plaintiffs to File Amended Securities Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities suit against CBS Corporation filed a
motion for leave to serve an amended complaint after the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed
the original complaint, according to the company's May 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On Dec. 12, 2008, the City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System filed a self-styled class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company and its Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and Treasurer,
alleging violations of federal securities law.

The complaint, which was filed on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the company's common stock between Feb. 26, 2008,
and Oct. 10, 2008, alleges that, among other things, the
company's failure to timely write down the value of certain
assets caused the company's reported operating results during the
Class Period to be materially inflated.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory damages.

On Feb. 11, 2009, a motion was filed in the case on behalf of The
City of Omaha, Nebraska Civilian Employees' Retirement System,
and The City of Omaha Police and Fire Retirement System seeking
to appoint the Omaha Funds as the lead plaintiffs in this case;
on March 5, 2009, the court granted that motion.

On May 4, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which
removes the Treasurer as a defendant and adds the Executive
Chairman.

On July 13, 2009, all defendants filed a motion to dismiss this
action.

On March 16, 2010, the court granted the company's motion and
dismissed this action as to the company and all defendants.

On April 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
serve an amended complaint.

CBS Corporation -- http://www.cbscorporation.com/-- is a mass  
media company with constituent parts that reach back to the
beginnings of the broadcast industry, as well as newer businesses
that operate on the leading edge of the media industry.  The
company, through its many and varied operations, combines broad
reach with well-positioned local businesses, all of which provide
it with an extensive distribution network by which it serves
audiences and advertisers in all 50 states and key international
markets.  It has operations in virtually every field of media and
entertainment, including broadcast television (CBS and The CW - a
joint venture between CBS Corporation and Warner Bros.
Entertainment), cable television (Showtime Networks, Smithsonian
Networks and CBS College Sports Network), local television (CBS
Television Stations), television production and syndication (CBS
Television Studios, CBS Studios International and CBS Television
Distribution), radio (CBS Radio), advertising on out-of-home
media (CBS Outdoor), publishing (Simon & Schuster), interactive
media (CBS Interactive), music (CBS Records), licensing and
merchandising (CBS Consumer Products), video/DVD (CBS Home
Entertainment) and motion pictures (CBS Films).


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Court Dismisses Four Purported Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
On April 27, 2010, four purported stockholder class actions
pending against Century Aluminum Company in Petzschke v. Century
Aluminum Co., et al., Abrams v. Century Aluminum Co., et al.,
McClellan v. Century Aluminum Co., et al., and Hilyard v.
Century Aluminum Co., et al., were dismissed without prejudice,
according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.  

Plaintiffs had until May 14, 2010, to submit an amended
complaint.

In March 2009, the class actions were filed against the company
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  These actions have been consolidated and a lead
plaintiff has been confirmed.  These cases allege that the
company improperly accounted for cash flows associated with the
termination of certain forward financial sales contracts which
accounting allegedly resulted in artificial inflation of our
stock price and investor losses.  These actions seek rescission
of the Company's February 2009 common stock offering, unspecified
compensatory damages, including interest thereon, costs and
expenses and counsel fees.  

Century Aluminum Company -- http://www.centuryaluminum.com/--  
owns primary aluminum capacity in the United States and Iceland.
Century's corporate offices are located in Monterey, California.


CENTURY ALUMINUM: USWA Preliminary Injunction Motion Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Century Aluminum Company continues to await a ruling on a motion
filed by United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing,
Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO/CLC seeking preliminary injunction to prevent the Company
from implementing changes to its postretirement medical benefit
plan, according to the Company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.

Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc., amended its post
retirement medical benefit plan effective January 1, 2010, for
all current and former salaried employees, their dependents and
all bargaining unit employees who retired before June 1, 2006,
and their dependents.

The principal changes to the plan are upon attainment of age 65,
all CAWV provided retiree medical benefits will cease for
retirees and dependents.  In addition, bargaining unit retirees
under age 65 and dependents under age 65 are covered by the
salary retiree medical plan which requires out-of-pocket payments
for premiums, co-pays and deductibles by participants.

In November 2009, CAWV filed a class action complaint for
declaratory judgment against the USWA, the USWA's local union,
and four CAWV retirees, individually and as class
representatives, seeking a declaration of CAWV's rights to modify
or terminate retiree medical benefits.  

Later in November, the USWA and representatives of a retiree
class filed a separate suit against CAWV, Century Aluminum
Company, Century Aluminum Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and
various John Does with respect to the foregoing.  These actions,
entitled Dewhurst, et al. v. Century Aluminum Co., et al., and
Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper
and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial &
Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, et al., have
been consolidated and venue has been set in the District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia.  

In January 2010, the USWA filed a motion for preliminary
injunction to prevent the Company from implementing the changes
while these lawsuits are pending.

Century Aluminum Company -- http://www.centuryaluminum.com/--  
owns primary aluminum capacity in the United States and Iceland.
Century's corporate offices are located in Monterey, California.


DEAN FOODS: Summary Judgment Motion Still Pending in Tenn. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Co. is still awaiting the outcome of a summary
judgment motion filed in an action that accuses Dean Foods and
others in the milk industry of working together to limit the
price the Southeastern dairy farmers are paid for their raw milk
and to deny these farmers access to fluid Grade A milk processing
facilities, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Deans Foods was named, among several defendants, in two purported
class action antitrust complaints filed on July 5, 2007.  The
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Columbia Division and allege generally
that the Company and others in the milk industry worked together
to limit the price Southeastern dairy farmers are paid for their
raw milk and to deny these farmers access to fluid Grade A milk
processing facilities.

A third purported class action antitrust complaint was filed on
August 9, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division.  The complaint in
the retailer action was amended on March 28, 2008.  The amended
complaint alleges generally that the Company, either acting alone
or in conjunction with others in the milk industry, lessened
competition in the Southeastern United States for the sale of
processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other
customers and that the defendants' conduct also artificially
inflated retail prices for direct milk purchasers.

Four additional purported class action complaints were filed on
August 27, 2007, October 3, 2007, November 15, 2007 and
February 13, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division.  The allegations in
these complaints are similar to those in the dairy farmer
actions.

On January 7, 2008, a United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of the pending cases to
the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division.

On April 1, 2008, the Eastern District Court ordered the
consolidation of the six dairy farmer actions and ordered the
retailer action to be administratively consolidated with the
coordinated dairy farmer actions.

A motion to dismiss the dairy farmer actions was denied on
May 20, 2008, and an amended consolidated complaint was filed by
the dairy farmer plaintiffs on June 20, 2008.  

A motion to dismiss the retailer action was denied on July 27,
2009.

Motions for class certification were filed in both actions on May
1, 2009, and are currently pending before the Court.

A motion for summary judgment in the retailer action was filed on
September 18, 2009.  

Fact discovery is generally complete in these matters, and expert
discovery has begun.

Dean Foods Co. -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- is a food and
beverage company.  The company has two segments: the Dairy Group
and WhiteWave Foods Co.  The Dairy Group manufactures and sells
its products under a variety of local and regional brand names
and under private labels.  WhiteWave Foods Co. develops,
manufactures, markets and sells a variety of nationally branded
soy, dairy and dairy-related products, such as Silk soymilk and
cultured soy products, Horizon Organic dairy products,
International Delight coffee creamers, LAND O'LAKES creamers and
fluid dairy products, and Rachel's Organic dairy products.


DEAN FOODS: Faces Second Antitrust Complaint in Vermont
-------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Co. is facing a second class action antitrust
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont,
which generally alleges that the Company and others in the milk
industry worked together to limit the price dairy farmers in the
Northeastern United States are paid for their raw milk and to
deny these farmers access to fluid Grade A milk processing
facilities, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On October 8, 2009, Dean Foods Co. was named, among several
defendants, in a purported class action antitrust complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont.  The
complaint, which was amended on January 21, 2010, contains
allegations similar in nature to that of the dairy farmer
actions, and alleges generally that the Company and others in the
milk industry worked together to limit the price dairy farmers in
the Northeastern United States are paid for their raw milk and to
deny these farmers access to fluid Grade A milk processing
facilities.  

A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed on
February 9, 2010.  

A second complaint was filed by a different plaintiff on
January 14, 2010.  The second complaint is similar to the
original complaint.  

These cases are at a very preliminary stage, and the Company
intends to vigorously defend against these actions.

Dean Foods Co. -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- is a food and
beverage company.  The company has two segments: the Dairy Group
and WhiteWave Foods Co.  The Dairy Group manufactures and sells
its products under a variety of local and regional brand names
and under private labels.  WhiteWave Foods Co. develops,
manufactures, markets and sells a variety of nationally branded
soy, dairy and dairy-related products, such as Silk soymilk and
cultured soy products, Horizon Organic dairy products,
International Delight coffee creamers, LAND O'LAKES creamers and
fluid dairy products, and Rachel's Organic dairy products.


DEAN FOODS: "Indirect Purchasers" Suit in Tennessee Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of indirect purchasers
of processed fluid Grade A milk filed against Dean Foods Co. and
other in the milk industry continue to be stayed, according to
the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

On June 29, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee,
Greeneville Division, on behalf of indirect purchasers of
processed fluid Grade A milk.  The allegations in this complaint
are similar to those in the retailer action, but primarily
involve state law claims.  Because the allegations in this
complaint substantially overlap with the allegations in the
retailer action, on September 1, 2009, the Court granted the
parties' joint motion to stay all proceedings in the indirect
purchaser action pending the outcome of the summary judgment
motion in the retailer action.

The retailer action alleges generally that the Company, either
acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry,
lessened competition in the Southeastern United States for the
sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other
customers and that the defendants' conduct also artificially
inflated retail prices for direct milk purchasers.

Dean Foods Co. -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- is a food and
beverage company.  The company has two segments: the Dairy Group
and WhiteWave Foods Co.  The Dairy Group manufactures and sells
its products under a variety of local and regional brand names
and under private labels.  WhiteWave Foods Co. develops,
manufactures, markets and sells a variety of nationally branded
soy, dairy and dairy-related products, such as Silk soymilk and
cultured soy products, Horizon Organic dairy products,
International Delight coffee creamers, LAND O'LAKES creamers and
fluid dairy products, and Rachel's Organic dairy products.


DIRECTV INC: 11th Cir. Says Subscriber Arbitration Unenforceable
----------------------------------------------------------------
DirecTV and the DirecTV Group asked the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to reverse a U.S. District Court
ruling denying their motion to compel a subscriber to arbitrate
her consumer complaint.  The district court ruled that an
arbitration clause in the subscriber's contract with DirecTV was
unenforceable because its waiver of the right to maintain a class
action was unconscionable.  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed that
decision.

A copy of the per curium decision in Jones v. DirecTV, Inc., et
al., No. 09-15936 (11th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100603087


FARMERS AUTOMOBILE: Argues Workers Not Entitled to Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at The Madison County Record reports that the
defendant in a certified Madisonon County class action argued
Monday that the lead plaintiff and class of insurance adjusters
were not entitled to overtime pay at issue in the suit.

Circuit Judge David Hylla heard Farmers Automobile Insurance
Association's motion for summary judgment in the 2003 case that
was certified in 2005 by retired Circuit Judge Phillip Kardis.

Lead plaintiff Christopher Loesche, a former insurance adjuster,
claims Farmers violated the Illinois minimum wage law.

Hylla had previously denied Loesche's motion for summary
judgment.

The class is represented by Lanny Darr.

Farmers is represented by Charles Reis.

The case returned to Madison County in December 2007 from the
Fifth District Appellate Court in Mount Vernon where Justices
James Wexstten, Thomas Welch and Stephen Spomer rejected Farmers'
appeal of Kardis' certification.

Farmers had argued that the class was not large enough and the
claims were not common enough to warrant a class action.

The defense also claimed that Loesche did not adequately protect
the interests of the class.

The class consisted of 52 members at the time of the appeal.

Farmers argued in its motion for summary judgment that it can
show that adjusters were exempt from the minimum wage law and not
entitled to overtime pay.

It points to Loesche's deposition testimony and that of other
adjusters about their duties and classification.

It cites paying the class members at least $455 a week in salary
that satisfies part of the law. It also claims that class members
were not performing extraordinary duties.

Farmers asked Hylla to enter summary judgment in its favor on the
first and second counts of the suit, those pertaining to overtime
and unjust enrichment.

Hylla took some issue with supporting depositions filed by the
parties in relation to the summary judgment. According to Hylla's
comments, the depositions are from non-parties in the case.

He asked the defense to explain how those were evidence in the
case.

"I can't look at discovery depositions from a non-party in this
case," Hylla said, explaining his concerns. "It's not admissible.
It's not evidence yet."

The defense told Hylla that the statements in the depositions
were not being used to impeach Loesche but rather to support the
defense summary judgment move.

The plaintiff's table argued that the depositions conflicted with
Loesche's statements and that they created issues of fact that
needed to be decided at trial.

Hylla and the parties then agreed that only one element of the
summary judgment motion is currently in dispute.

The disputed part of the motion pertains to how much individual
authority Loesche had. That plays into whether his position was
exempt from the overtime law in effect while he was employed by
Farmers.

Hylla gave the plaintiff until June 18 to file additional law
citations and materials.

The defense will then respond before a hearing June 23 at 9:30
a.m.

The case is Madison case number 03-L-1147.

GOOGLE INC: Says No Connection Between Patent & Wi-Fi Snooping
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Reeder at ITBusinessEdge.com reports that Google says there
is no relation between a 2008 patent application and the current
privacy debacle over its Street View vehicles sniffing
information from unsecured wireless networks, citing a
Computerworld report.

Last week, a class-action suit filed by an Oregon woman and a
Washington man was amended to claim that Google's secret Wi-Fi
snooping was powered by new sniffing technology that the company
wants to patent.

A Google spokesman says:

     That patent application is entirely unrelated to the
     software code used to collect Wi-Fi information with Street
     View cars.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt is blaming a single Google engineer for
the mess, and says it is launching an internal investigation
against the software engineer responsible for the rogue code the
company says was added to its Street View vehicles without its
knowledge.


HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Health Management Associates, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
consolidated amended complaint remains pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, according to
the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

On or about Aug. 20, 2007, the company, and certain of its
executive officers and directors were named as defendants in an
action entitled Ingram v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et
al. (No. 2:07-CV-00529), which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division.  
This action was brought as a purported class action on behalf of
all participants in or beneficiaries of the Health Management
Associates, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan during the period
Jan. 17, 2007, through Aug. 20, 2007 and whose participant
accounts included shares of HMA's common stock.

The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants:

     (i) breached their fiduciary responsibilities to Plan
         participants and their beneficiaries under the Employee
         Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and neglected to
         adequately supervise the management and administration
         of the Plan;

    (ii) failed to communicate complete, full and accurate
         information regarding the Plan's investments in HMA's
         common stock; and

   (iii) had conflicts of interest.

Three similar purported ERISA class action lawsuits were
subsequently filed in the Florida District Court.

On May 14, 2008, the Florida District Court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the four ERISA actions.  The
consolidated case continues to be administered under the docket
number and caption assigned to the Ingram Action.

On May 20, 2009, a U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation as to an interim lead counsel committee for the
plaintiffs.  On June 10, 2009, such report and recommendation
were adopted by the Florida District Court.

On July 27, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which is similar to the original complaint in the
Ingram Action.  The defendants named in the consolidated amended
complaint include HMA, certain current and former officers and
directors of HMA and members of the Plan's Retirement Committee.

During September 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim.  The
plaintiffs filed a response to the defendants' motion to dismiss
on Dec. 14, 2009.  The defendants' reply in further support of
their motion to dismiss was filed in the Florida District Court
on Jan. 27, 2010.

The plaintiffs in the Ingram Action, as amended, seek awards of
unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

In connection with the ERISA class action lawsuits that were
filed prior to consolidation, counsel for certain plaintiffs sent
letters to the Plan's Retirement Committee claiming that their
preliminary calculations indicate the Plan suffered losses of at
least $60 million.

Health Management Associates, Inc. -- http://www.HMA.com/--  
enables America's best local health care by providing the people,
processes, capital and expertise necessary for its hospital and
physician partners to fulfill their local missions of delivering
superior health care services.  Through its subsidiaries, Health
Management operates 55 hospitals, with approximately 8,400
licensed beds, in non-urban communities located throughout the
United States.


HUDSON VALLEY: Credit Union Sues N.Y. to Determine Tax's Validity
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claude R. Marx at Credit Union Times reports that Hudson Valley
Federal Credit Union, is suing the State of New York over the
legality of the mortgage recording tax, and is itself the subject
of a lawsuit from members who had to pay the tax.

On April 29, a group of members who obtained mortgages from
Hudson Valley FCU filed a class-action lawsuit in U.S. District
Court in New York alleged that the credit union and several title
companies didn't tell them they don't have to pay the tax. It
alleges that the tax has been improperly levied for decades. The
credit union is headquartered in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. and has
assets of $2.7 billion.

Hudson Valley FCU, which has sued New York State in state court,
in a separate administrative action is seeking a refund of
approximately $1.8 million it paid in mortgage recording taxes.

Last month, a New York State trial court ruled against Hudson
Valley FCU in its suit against New York State, though lawyers for
the credit union have said they plan to appeal. Hudson Valley FCU
has been backed by the U.S. Department of Justice in this case.

New York Supreme Court Justice Judith Gische ruled that based on
previous cases, the courts had determined that the tax is not a
tax on property but a "privilege," and therefore not part of the
tax exemption granted federal credit unions under the Federal
Credit Union Act. She also dismissed the claim the U.S.
Constitution's Supremacy Clause caused Hudson Valley FCU to be
exempt from the tax.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs didn't return a phone call seeking
comment on the class-action lawsuit.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Action Suits Follow April 30 Recall
------------------------------------------------------------
When a saboteur laced Tylenol capsules with cyanide in 1982,
killing seven people in the Chicago area, Johnson & Johnson's
quick recall of millions of capsules, Carrie Levine at The
National Law Journal reports, free replacement medicines and
frequent updates set the standard for public relations in a
crisis.

But on April 30, the company again faced a recall, this time of
more than 136 million bottles of pediatric Tylenol, Motrin,
Benadryl and Zyrtec due to manufacturing problems. Suddenly, the
company's halo is showing some tarnish. Investigators haven't
linked the defects in the medication to any health problems, but
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said the division of the
company responsible for quality control at the Pennsylvania-based
plant, McNeil Consumer Healthcare, had a pattern of violations
and delayed reporting problems to the agency.

While Johnson & Johnson's troubles have drawn less attention than
BP PLC and Toyota Motor Corp., the company is facing legal
problems on several fronts.  [At least] two class actions have
been filed against the McNeil division -- one in the Northern
District of Illinois and the other in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania -- trying to force it to broaden the recall and to
offer cash refunds only, instead of a choice between cash and
coupons for new products. Shareholders filed suit against the New
Brunswick, N.J.-based Johnson & Johnson in New Jersey, alleging
the board breached its good-faith duty for failing to act after
the FDA had expressed earlier concerns about quality control and
manufacturing practices at the plant.

"It markets itself as a company that takes children's safety very
seriously and that's why they can charge a premium price for the
Tylenol," said:

          Donald Haviland Jr., Esq.
          Haviland Hughes LLC
          The Bourse, Suite 1000
          111 S. Independence Mall East
          Philadelphia, PA 19106

who represents plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania suit. "People [are]
willing to pay the premium price because of that reputation for
safety. Now they're being deceived. We want to make sure that
value is offered." Haviland said he expects the class actions to
be combined.

The FDA, meanwhile, is considering criminal penalties against
McNeil. And the House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, which held a hearing on the recalls on May 27, is still
sniffing around the issue. Committee Chair Edolphus Towns, D-
N.Y., said he plans to introduce legislation giving the FDA
mandatory recall authority.

                    Sidley Austin Hired to
                 Defend Shareholder Litigation

Jeffrey Leebaw, a spokesman for Johnson & Johnson, said the
company won't comment on pending litigation. But he confirmed
that Sidley Austin has been hired to represent the company in the
shareholder case.

             Class Action Counsel Not Yet Retained

Leebaw also said that Johnson & Johnson has not yet retained
outside counsel to defend the class actions.

                     Other Legal Professional

In Washington, Covington & Burling is working for the company on
issues related to the recall, including the FDA and congressional
investigations, Leebaw said. Leebaw wouldn't name specific
lawyers working on the matters. Both firms have worked with
Johnson & Johnson in the past.

Johnson & Johnson also has a steady roster of Washington
lobbyists. The company's lobbying expenses were $2.1 million in
the first quarter of 2010, before the recall, and nearly $6.4
million in 2009. Its Washington office includes 14 in-house
registered lobbyists. Eleven outside lobbying firms have
registered the company as a client, including Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld ($50,000 in the first quarter of 2010), Brownstein
Hyatt Farber Schreck ($90,000) and Cornerstone Government
Relations ($40,000). Foley Hoag lobbies for McNeil.

Leebaw said the company has been in contact with members of the
oversight committee, as well as members of the New Jersey and
Pennsylvania delegations, where the company has a significant
presence. Barney Skladany Jr., a partner at Akin Gump registered
to lobby for Johnson & Johnson, said that, before last month's
hearing on the recalls, he contacted the offices of some members
of Congress to find out if members were planning to attend the
hearing and "any particular points of interest that they might
have had."

Wiley Rein's Bert Rein, a food and drug lawyer who does not
represent Johnson & Johnson, said the company should cooperate
with the FDA. Satisfying the agency's concerns "is of great value
to the company because it says we've opened ourselves up, we've
satisfied them," he said. "The value of the brand is such that
that's got to be the first thought."


KELLOGG CO: FTC Snaps Cereal Maker for Misleading Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
FindLaw reports that The Kellogg Company is in hot water, or
perhaps, milk. They have reached a settlement with the Federal
Trade Commission after claiming that Kellogg's Rice Krispies
"helps support your child's immunity," with "antioxidants and
nutrients that your family needs to help them stay healthy." The
cereal maker, famous for popular commercial jingles such as "Snap
Crackle Pop," had printed claims on their boxes indicating that
their cereal was especially healthy. The FTC found that these
claims were unsubstantiated.

This comes after Kellogg was fined by the FTC for claiming that
Frosted Mini-Wheats had been clinically shown to improve kids'
attentiveness by nearly 20%. The FTC has now prohibited Kellogg
from making claims about any health benefit of any food unless
the claims are backed by scientific evidence and not misleading.

After the Mini-Wheats incident, Kellogg promised not to make
"claims about the benefits to cognitive health, process, or
function provided by any cereal or any morning food or snack food
unless the claims were true and substantiated." But the FTC says
that less than a year later, Kellogg was making unsubstantiated
claims about its cereal yet again. "We expect more from a great
American company than making dubious claims not once, but twice
that its cereals improve children's health," said FTC Chairman,
Jon Leibowitz, in a press release, Thursday.

The FTC Commission voted 5-0 to modify the 2009 Mini-Wheats
settlement. "As a trusted, long-established company with a
presence in millions of American homes, Kellogg must not shirk
its responsibility to do the right thing when it advertises the
food we feed our children," said FTC Commissioner Julie Brill and
Chairman Jon Leibowitz in a separate statement.

In the end, the settlement amounts to a slap on the wrist for a
company the size of Kellogg, with a market cap of over $20
billion. The settlement does not constitute an admission of a law
violation. When the Federal Trade Commission issues a consent
order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect
to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in
a civil penalty of up to $16,000.


KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Chinese Drywall Risks May Have Been Discussed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that New documents in a class-action
lawsuit over faulty Chinese drywall show a South Florida supplier
agreed not to make any statements regarding the plasterboard's
smell or health risks.

The documents, unsealed Friday and provided to The Associated
Press by attorney Victor Diaz, include a 2006 settlement
agreement between Banner Supply Co. and manufacturer Knauf
Plasterboard Tianjin Co.

Knauf agreed to provide Banner Supply with U.S.-produced
plasterboard and to pay them for the storage of the Chinese
product.

Banner Supply agreed not to make any statements to the press or
any individual regarding "perceived or actual smell or health
risks" related to the Chinese drywall.

An attorney for Banner Supply told an AP reporter that the
company did not hide anything.


LOWER MERION: Legal Fees in Webcam Spying Case Approach $1 Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
John P. Martin at The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that legal
fees in the Lower Merion School District's webcam case are
inching toward $1 million, a sum that could end up handed to
local taxpayers.

A district spokesman on Monday disclosed that the bills to defend
the use of the now-disabled laptop tracking system have grown to
about $780,000.

At the same time, the lawyer whose lawsuit over the webcam
monitoring drew worldwide attention disclosed in court papers
that his fees - costs he is likely to ask Lower Merion to pay -
were more than $148,000 and climbing.

And the district's insurance firm renewed its contention that it
shouldn't have to foot the bill in the case.

The insurer, Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance, argued in a filing in
federal court that the school district had violated the terms of
its insurance policy when it hired lawyers to defend the case
without first getting the insurer's approval.

The developments, all which came Monday, suggested progress but
also potential roadblocks to resolving the four-month-old case.

The district has already approved payments of more than $550,000
to the Ballard Spahr law firm and L3, a computer forensics firm
hired to help investigate the laptop-monitoring program and
defend against the suit. District spokesman Doug Young said
Monday that the law firm had since submitted bills for an
additional $235,000.

In a motion seeking class-action status for the case, attorney
Mark S. Haltzman offered the first glimpse of his fees. His
motion for certification, filed in federal court in Philadelphia,
said he had already devoted more than 350 hours to the case,
which, at $425 an hour, translates to $148,750. Two partners have
assisted, the motion said, and the firm also hired a computer
forensics expert.

Haltzman asked U.S. District Judge Jan E. DuBois to appoint him
and his Trevose firm, Lamm Rubenstone L.L.C., as the lawyers for
the class, arguing that the firm is qualified and has devoted
hundreds of hours to the case.

Haltzman represents Blake Robbins, the Harriton High School
sophomore whose lawsuit brought the tracking program to light.

Robbins alleged the district secretly spied on him at home
through his laptop webcam. His suit said Robbins was a member of
a class of victims - Lower Merion students - whose privacy may
have been violated.

The district has since disabled the system, and acknowledged that
it was plagued by poor planning and management and that it
captured thousands of images of students.

Last month, DuBois signed an injunction that bars Lower Merion
from using such invasive technology without getting written
waivers from students and their parents.

Haltzman has said he would not seek a lump sum of damages on
behalf of the class because Robbins and other students
photographed by laptops had unique experiences and couldn't be
equally compensated.

Henry E. Hockeimer Jr., the lawyer representing the school
district, declined to comment on the filing.

Who will pay the legal tab remains unclear. Attorneys for Lower
Merion contend that the district's multimillion-dollar insurance
policy covers Robbins' claim. But in its Monday filing, Graphic
Arts contended the district had breached its policy by
"unilaterally retaining counsel and incurring other obligations
and expenses."

Lawyers for the school district didn't respond to requests for
comment on the new filing.


MEMC ELECTRONIC: Consolidated Mo. Suit Dismissed; Appeal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
dismissed a consolidated putative class action lawsuit against,
among other defendants, MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., and an
appeal has been filed, according to the company's May 10, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On September 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
by plaintiff Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association
asserting claims against MEMC and Nabeel Gareeb, MEMC's former
Chief Executive Officer.

On October 10, 2008, a substantially similar putative class
action lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Donald Jameson against
MEMC, Mr. Gareeb and Ken Hannah, MEMC's former Chief Financial
Officer and currently MEMC's Executive Vice President and
President-Solar Materials.  

These cases purportedly are brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of MEMC's common stock between June 13, 2008 and
July 23, 2008, inclusive.  

Both complaints allege that, during the Class Period, MEMC failed
to disclose certain material facts regarding MEMC's operations
and performance, which had the effect of artificially inflating
MEMC's stock price in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

Plaintiffs further allege that Messrs. Gareeb and Hannah are
subject to liability under Section 20(a) of the Act as control
persons of MEMC.  Plaintiffs seek certification of the putative
class, unspecified compensatory damages, interest and costs, as
well as ancillary relief.

On December 12, 2008, these actions were consolidated, and the
Court appointed Mahendra A. Patel as lead plaintiff.  

Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 23,
2009.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint, which was fully briefed by the parties by June 24,
2009.  

On March 8, 2010, the Court dismissed the consolidated class
action with prejudice.  

On March 31, 2010, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

MEMC Electronic Materials Inc. -- http://www.memc.com/-- is   
engaged into designing, manufacturing, and selling of silicon
wafers.  Its customers include major semiconductor device and
solar cell (device) manufacturers. It provides wafer in sizes
ranging from 100 millimeters (4 inch) to 300 millimeters (12
inch).  The Company also sells intermediate products, such as
polysilicon, silane gas, ingots and scrap wafers to semiconductor
device and equipment makers, solar cell and module manufacturers,
flat panel and other industries.  The Company offers variety of
wafers varying in size, surface features, composition, purity
levels, crystal properties and electrical properties.  In
November 2009, the Company completed the acquisition of Sun
Edison LLC.


MEMC ELECTRONIC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Jones" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on
March 17, 2010, denied a motion by MEMC Electronic Materials,
Inc., to dismiss a complaint filed by Jerry Jones, according to
the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On December 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
by plaintiff, Jerry Jones, purportedly on behalf of all
participants in and beneficiaries of MEMC's 401(k) Savings Plan
between September 4, 2007 and December 26, 2008, inclusive.  The
complaint asserted claims against MEMC and certain of its
directors, employees or other unnamed fiduciaries of the Plan.
The complaint alleges that the defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, generally asserting that the defendants failed to
make full disclosure to the Plan's participants of the risks of
investing in MEMC's stock and that the Company's stock should not
have been made available as an investment alternative in the
Plan.  

On June 1, 2009, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Mr. Jones and another purported participant of the Plan, Manuel
Acosta, which raises substantially the same claims and is based
on substantially the same allegations as the original complaint.
However, the amended complaint changes the period of time covered
by the action, purporting to be brought on behalf of
beneficiaries of and participants in the Plan from June 13, 2008
through the present, inclusive.  The amended complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages, including losses the participants
and beneficiaries of the Plan allegedly experienced due to their
investment through the Plan in MEMC's stock, equitable relief and
an award of attorney's fees.

No class has been certified and discovery has not begun.  The
Company and the named directors and employees filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, which was fully briefed by the parties as
of October 9, 2009.  The parties each subsequently filed notices
of supplemental authority and corresponding responses.  

On March 17, 2010, the court denied the motion to dismiss.

On April 14, 2010, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration
or, in the alternative, certification for interlocutory appeal.
On April 22, 2010, the court ordered that plaintiff's response to
the motion for reconsideration be filed on or before May 26, 2010
and that defendants' reply be filed on or before June 16, 2010.

The Company and the named directors and employees intend to
vigorously defend themselves against these claims, according to
its May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing.

MEMC Electronic Materials Inc. -- http://www.memc.com/-- is   
engaged into designing, manufacturing, and selling of silicon
wafers.  Its customers include major semiconductor device and
solar cell (device) manufacturers. It provides wafer in sizes
ranging from 100 millimeters (4 inch) to 300 millimeters (12
inch).  The Company also sells intermediate products, such as
polysilicon, silane gas, ingots and scrap wafers to semiconductor
device and equipment makers, solar cell and module manufacturers,
flat panel and other industries.  The Company offers variety of
wafers varying in size, surface features, composition, purity
levels, crystal properties and electrical properties.  In
November 2009, the Company completed the acquisition of Sun
Edison LLC.


MERCK FROSST: Canadian Non-Profit Exploring Fosamax Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Fidelman at the Montreal Gazette reports that a  non-
profit Montreal-based consumer group wants to launch a class-
action suit against pharmaceutical giant Merck Frosst for failing
to disclose side effects connected with Fosamax, an osteoporosis
drug.

Worried about fractures and bone damage associated with long-term
use of the medication, the group is warning consumers, doctors
and government health agencies of potential risks, said Jacinthe
Lauzon of Option-Consommateurs.

Fosamax (alendronate) has been marketed largely to healthy women
in Canada as a drug to prevent bone loss.

An estimated 3,000 Quebec women take the drug. Last year, RAMQ,
the Quebec health insurance board saw 1.5 million prescriptions
filled at a cost of $26 million, Lauzon said.

Since the group filed its class action demand in 2007 several
disturbing international studies have come to light, Lauzon said.

Fosamax is in a class of medications called bisphosphonates. But
studies suggest that the drug designed to strengthen bones is not
effective in preventing bone degeneration and fractures, and in
some cases may lead to weak, brittle bones that can break
spontaneously.

The drug is also associated with rare side-effects, including
osteonecrosis, or Fosamax dead-jaw, a painful condition that can
cause serious health consequences. According to various studies,
the rate of such side effects is about one in 1,000 users, Lauzon
said.

Lawsuits launched in the United States on behalf of patients with
jaw damage following dental work and femur bone fractures contend
that Merck Frosst may have shown distorted data results based on
too few studies when seeking approval for Fosamax for prevention
purposes.

As early as 2006 a study by Health Canada showed the drug did not
significantly reduce the risk of fractures except in vertebrae
bones, Lauzon said.

A longitudinal Italian study of 862 Fosamax users showed
fractures at a rate of nearly 10 per cent a year, higher than the
company's clinical trials. The ICARO study published in 2008
suggests the benefits of the bone drug have been overstated.

Option-Consommateurs wants Health Canada to re-evaluate Fosamax
safety and efficacy, Lauzon said. Drug companies have to be up
front with consumers about possible risks, she added.

Reached late afternoon Monday, Vincent Lamoureux, corporate
spokesperson for Merck Frosst Canada, said the company would not
be able to comment until the following day.

The class action suit demand is expected to be heard in the fall.

Additional information about the suit is available at:

     http://www.option-consommateurs.org/


PARKER HANNIFIN: Settlement in Consolidated Suit Gets Court Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement agreement entered into by Parker Hannifin
Corporation resolving a consolidated class action complaint has
been granted final approval by the Court, according to the
company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Parker ITR S.r.l., a subsidiary acquired on Jan. 31, 2002, has
been the subject of a number of lawsuits and regulatory
investigations since April 27, 2007, when a grand jury in the
Southern District of Florida issued a subpoena to Parker ITR and
the company requiring the production of documents, in particular
documents related to communications with competitors and
customers related to Parker ITR's business unit that manufactures
marine hose, typically used in oil transfer.  The lawsuits and
investigations relate to allegations that for a period of up to
21 years, the Parker ITR business unit that manufactures and
sells marine hose conspired with competitors in unreasonable
restraint of trade to artificially raise, fix, maintain or
stabilize prices, rig bids and allocate markets and customers for
marine oil and gas hose in the United States and in other
jurisdictions.

During this time period, four class action lawsuits were filed in
the Southern District of Florida: Shipyard Supply LLC v.
Bridgestone Corporation, et al., filed May 17, 2007; Expro Gulf
Limited v. Bridgestone Corporation, et al., filed June 6, 2007;
Bayside Rubber & Products, Inc. v. Trelleborg Industrie S.A., et
al., filed June 25, 2007; Bayside Rubber & Products, Inc. v.
Caleca, et al., filed July 12, 2007; and one in the Southern
District of New York: Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Bridgestone
Corporation, et al., filed July 27, 2007.

On Sept. 12, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint.  Plaintiffs have since filed another
amended consolidated complaint naming prior owners of the Parker
ITR business unit that manufactures and sells marine hose.
Plaintiffs generally seek treble damages, a permanent injunction,
attorneys' fees, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The company and Parker ITR reached a settlement of the class
action litigation, and the Court granted final approval of that
settlement on Jan. 13, 2010.

Parker Hannifin Corporation -- http://www.parker.com/--  
manufactures motion and control technologies and systems,
providing precision-engineered solutions for a wide variety of
mobile, industrial and aerospace markets.  The company employs
approximately 52,000 people in 48 countries around the world.  
Parker has increased its annual dividends paid to shareholders
for 53 consecutive years, among the top five longest-running
dividend-increase records in the S&P 500 index.


PITNEY BOWES: "Rine" Plaintiffs Rehearing Petition Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Judicial Circuit has denied
the petition for rehearing filed by the plaintiffs in the suit
Rine, et al. v. Imagitas, Inc., according to Pitney Bowes Inc.'s
May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Imagitas is Pitney Bowes' wholly-owned subsidiary.

Imagitas is a defendant in ten purported class actions filed in
six different states.  These lawsuits have been coordinated in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
captioned In re: Imagitas, Driver's Privacy Protection Act
Litigation (Coordinated, May 28, 2007).

Each of these lawsuits alleges that the Imagitas DriverSource
program violates the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act.
Under the DriverSource program, Imagitas entered into contracts
with state governments to mail out automobile registration
renewal materials along with third party advertisements, without
revealing the personal information of any state resident to any
advertiser.  The DriverSource program assisted the state in
performing its governmental function of delivering these mailings
and funding the costs of them.  The plaintiffs in these actions
are seeking statutory damages under the DPPA.

On April 9, 2008, the District Court granted Imagitas' motion for
summary judgment in one of the coordinated cases, Rine, et al. v.
Imagitas, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida,
filed Aug. 1, 2006).

On July 30, 2008, the District Court issued a final judgment in
the Rine lawsuit and stayed all of the other cases filed against
Imagitas pending an appellate decision in Rine.  On Aug. 27,
2008, the Rine plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District Court's
decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Judicial Circuit.

On Dec. 21, 2009, the Circuit Court affirmed the District Court
decision.  On Jan. 8, 2010, the Rine plaintiffs filed a petition
for rehearing en banc with the Circuit Court.

On Feb. 22, 2010, the Circuit Court denied the Rine plaintiffs
petition for rehearing en banc.  The Rine plaintiffs ability to
pursue further review of this decision has expired.  With respect
to the remaining stayed cases, the District Court has requested
that the parties provide status reports and a proposed schedule
for the remaining proceedings.

Pitney Bowes Inc. -- http://www.pb.com/index.shtml-- is a  
provider of mail processing equipment and integrated mail
solutions.  The company offers a range of equipment, supplies,
software and services for end-to-end mailstream solutions, which
enable its customers to optimize the flow of physical and
electronic mail, documents and packages across their operations.  
Pitney Bowes Inc. operates in two business groups: Mailstream
Solutions and Mailstream Services.  It operates both inside and
outside the United States.  The company conducts its business
activities in seven business segments within the Mailstream
Solutions and Mailstream Services business groups, which includes
United States Mailing; International Mailing; Production Mail;
Software; Management Services; Mail Services, and Marketing
Services.  The company's products and services are marketed
through a network of direct sales offices in the United States
and through a number of its subsidiaries and independent
distributors and dealers in many countries worldwide.


PITNEY BOWES: Defends Securities Violation Suit in Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pitney Bowes Inc. defends a class action lawsuit captioned NECA-
IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Pitney Bowes Inc. et al., filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

The suit was filed on Oct. 28, 2009 against the company and
certain of its current and former officers.

The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of the
company during the period between July 30, 2007 and Oct. 29,
2007, alleging that the company, in essence, missed two financial
projections.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Pitney Bowes Inc. -- http://www.pb.com/index.shtml-- is a  
provider of mail processing equipment and integrated mail
solutions.  The company offers a range of equipment, supplies,
software and services for end-to-end mailstream solutions, which
enable its customers to optimize the flow of physical and
electronic mail, documents and packages across their operations.  
Pitney Bowes Inc. operates in two business groups: Mailstream
Solutions and Mailstream Services.  It operates both inside and
outside the United States.  The company conducts its business
activities in seven business segments within the Mailstream
Solutions and Mailstream Services business groups, which includes
United States Mailing; International Mailing; Production Mail;
Software; Management Services; Mail Services, and Marketing
Services.  The company's products and services are marketed
through a network of direct sales offices in the United States
and through a number of its subsidiaries and independent
distributors and dealers in many countries worldwide.


POWER BALANCE: Accused in N.J. Suit of Deceptive Advertising
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Power Balance, of Laguna
Niguel, Calif., claims its $30 Mylar wrist band can "improve
balance, flexibility and strength" because it's "embedded with a
range of frequencies found in nature that react positively" with
the "body's energy field," a class action claims in Bergen County
Court, N.J.

A copy of the Complaint in Hoffman v. Power Balance LLC, et al.,
Docket No. BER-L-5398-10 (N.J. Super. Ct., Bergen Cty.), is
available at:
            
      http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/07/PulltheOtherOne.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Harold M. Hoffman, Esq.
          240 Grand Ave.
          Englewood, NJ 07631
          Telephone: 201-569-0086
          E-mail: hoffman.esq@verizon.net


SUNTRUST BANKS: Seeks to Dismiss Suits by Former 1031 Customers
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss two putative class
action lawsuits filed by former customers of LandAmerica 1031
Exchange Services, Inc., remains pending, according to the
company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Two putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the
company by former customers of LandAmerica 1031 Exchange
Services, Inc., (LES), a subsidiary of LandAmerica Financial
Group, Inc. (LFG).

The first of these actions, Arthur et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc.
et al., was filed on Jan. 14, 2009, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.

The second of these cases, Terry et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc.
et al., was filed on Feb. 2, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas,
Tenth Judicial Circuit, County of Anderson, South Carolina, and
subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina.

On June 12, 2009, the MDL Panel issued a transfer order
designating the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina, Anderson Division, as MDL Court for IRS Section 1031
Tax Deferred Exchange Litigation (MDL 2054).

Plaintiffs' allegations in these cases are that LES and certain
of its officers caused them to suffer damages in connection with
potential 1031 exchange transactions that were pending at the
time that LES filed for bankruptcy.

Essentially, Plaintiffs' core allegation is that their damages
are the result of breaches of fiduciary and other duties owed to
them by LES and others, and fraud and other improper acts
committed by LES and certain of its officers, and that the
company is partially or entirely responsible for such damages
because it knew or should have known about the alleged wrongdoing
and failed to take appropriate steps to stop the same.

The company believes that the allegations and claims made against
it in these actions are both factually and legally unsupported,
and has filed a motion to dismiss all claims.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- headquartered  
in Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  The company operates an extensive branch
and ATM network throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-
Atlantic states and a full array of technology-based, 24-hour
delivery channels.  The company also serves clients in selected
markets nationally. Its primary businesses include deposit,
credit, and trust and investment management services.  Through
various subsidiaries, the company provides mortgage banking,
insurance, brokerage, equipment leasing, and capital markets
services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: "Zisholtz" Suit Dismissed by Georgia Court
----------------------------------------------------------
The matter Martin Zisholtz v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. and SunTrust
Robinson Humphrey, Inc., has been dismissed by the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, according to SunTrust
Banks, Inc.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

Since April 2008, several arbitrations and individual lawsuits
have been filed against SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. (STRH)
and SunTrust Investment Services, Inc. (STIS) by parties who
purchased auction rate securities through the firms.

Broadly stated, these complaints allege that STRH and STIS made
misrepresentations about the nature of these securities and
engaged in conduct designed to mask some of the liquidity risk
associated with them.  They also allege that STRH and STIS were
aware of the risks and problems associated with these securities,
and took steps in advance of the wave of auction failures to
remove these securities from their own holdings.  The claimants
in these actions are seeking to recover the par value of the
auction rate securities in question as well as compensatory and
punitive damages in unspecified amounts.

Only one putative class action lawsuit relating to auction rate
securities has been filed against the company or its
subsidiaries, Martin Zisholtz v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. and
SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc.  This case was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and recently
was dismissed with prejudice on the company's motion.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- headquartered  
in Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  The company operates an extensive branch
and ATM network throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-
Atlantic states and a full array of technology-based, 24-hour
delivery channels.  The company also serves clients in selected
markets nationally. Its primary businesses include deposit,
credit, and trust and investment management services.  Through
various subsidiaries, the company provides mortgage banking,
insurance, brokerage, equipment leasing, and capital markets
services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss Suit over ATM Fees Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an antitrust action over
ATM fees remains pending, according to the company's May 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The company is a defendant in a number of antitrust actions that
have been consolidated in federal court in San Francisco,
California under the name In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Master File No. C04-2676 CR13.

In these actions, Plaintiffs, on behalf of a class, assert that
Concord EFS and a number of financial institutions have
unlawfully fixed the interchange fee for participants in the Star
ATM Network.  Plaintiffs claim that Defendants' conduct is
illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Plaintiffs initially
asserted the Defendants' conduct was illegal per se.

In August 2007 Concord and the bank defendants filed motions for
summary judgment on Plaintiffs' per se claim.  In March 2008, the
Court granted the motion on the ground that Defendants' conduct
in setting an interchange fee must be analyzed under the rule of
reason.

The Court certified this question for interlocutory appeal, and
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Plaintiffs'
petition for permission to appeal on Aug. 13, 2008.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint in which
they asserted a rule of reason claim.  This complaint was
dismissed by the Court as well, but Plaintiffs were given leave
to file another amended complaint.  Plaintiffs have since done
so, and Defendants' motion to dismiss this complaint is pending
before the Court.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- headquartered  
in Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  The company operates an extensive branch
and ATM network throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-
Atlantic states and a full array of technology-based, 24-hour
delivery channels.  The company also serves clients in selected
markets nationally. Its primary businesses include deposit,
credit, and trust and investment management services.  Through
various subsidiaries, the company provides mortgage banking,
insurance, brokerage, equipment leasing, and capital markets
services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend Suit over Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc., continues to defend a multi-district
litigation case relating to the manner in which it charges
overdraft fees to customers, according to the company's May 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The company has been named as a defendant in several putative
class actions relating to the manner in which it charges
overdraft fees to customers.

One such case, Buffington et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al.
was filed in Fulton County Superior Court on May 6, 2009.  This
action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division on June 10, 2009, and was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida for inclusion in Multi-District Litigation Case No.
2036 on Dec. 1, 2009.

Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, conversion,
unconscionability, and unjust enrichment for alleged injuries
they suffered as a result of the company's assessment of
overdraft charges to their joint checking account, and purport to
bring their action on behalf of a putative class of "all SunTrust
Bank account holders who incurred an overdraft charge despite
their account having a sufficient balance of actual funds to
cover all debits that have been submitted to the bank for
payment," as well as "all SunTrust account holders who incurred
one or more overdraft charges based on SunTrust Bank's reordering
of charges."  Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, expenses of
litigation, attorneys' fees, and other relief deemed equitable by
the Court.

Currently pending before the MDL Court are the company's Motion
to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Action and SunTrust Bank's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- headquartered  
in Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  The company operates an extensive branch
and ATM network throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-
Atlantic states and a full array of technology-based, 24-hour
delivery channels.  The company also serves clients in selected
markets nationally. Its primary businesses include deposit,
credit, and trust and investment management services.  Through
various subsidiaries, the company provides mortgage banking,
insurance, brokerage, equipment leasing, and capital markets
services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend "Bailey" Suit in Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc., continues to defend that matter Bailey v.
SunTrust Bank et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, according to the company's May 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The company has been named as a defendant in several putative
class actions relating to the manner in which it charges
overdraft fees to customers.

One of these cases, Bailey v. SunTrust Bank et al. was filed in
the Orleans Parish Civil Court, State of Louisiana, and was
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana on Dec. 22, 2009.  Plaintiff asserts claims for
violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of
contract, conversion, abuse of right, unjust enrichment, fraud,
redhibitory vice, product liability, breach of obligation, and
violation of the Expedited Funds Availability Act and its
implementing regulations for alleged injuries he suffered as a
result of the company's assessment of overdraft charges to his
deposit account.

Plaintiff purports to bring the class action on behalf of "all
SunTrust Bank checking account holders whose indebtedness was
accelerated by the collection of unwarranted penalty fees, and
for transactions despite their account having a sufficient
balance of actual funds to cover the transaction, and for
transactions negotiated without proper endorsement."  Plaintiff
seeks restitution, damages, expenses of litigation, attorneys'
fees, and other relief deemed equitable by the Court.

On Jan. 20, 2010, the matter was conditionally transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for
inclusion in Multi-District Litigation Case No. 2036, but on Feb.
26, 2010, that transfer order was vacated by the MDL Panel.

On February 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File
Third Amended Individual Complaint and Second Amended Class
Complaint, which motion was granted on Feb. 22, 2010.

Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint alleges claims against the
company for violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices
Act, violation of the Expedited Funds Availability Act and its
implementing regulations, and "fault."  Plaintiff alleges that
his injuries arise from illegal conduct associated with his
purchase and electronic payment for an Apple computer and the
assessment of certain overdraft charges to his deposit account.

Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint adds Apple, Inc. and the
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta as Defendants.

The Third Amended Complaint purports to bring the class action on
behalf of two separate classes:

     (1) all Apple customers who made a purchase through an
         Apple Symbol at an Apple Retail Store, and were
         subjected without warning or notification by Apple to
         an Apple pre-authorization requirement; and

     (2) all SunTrust customers who were charged an overdraft
         fee when their SunTrust checking accounts were not
         overdrawn. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief,
         restitution, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, actual
         damages, punitive and exemplary damages, pre-judgment
         interest, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief
         deemed equitable by the Court.

The Court granted the company's motion to compel arbitration on
Feb. 24, 2010 and the company's motion to compel arbitration
remains pending.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- headquartered  
in Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  The company operates an extensive branch
and ATM network throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-
Atlantic states and a full array of technology-based, 24-hour
delivery channels.  The company also serves clients in selected
markets nationally. Its primary businesses include deposit,
credit, and trust and investment management services.  Through
various subsidiaries, the company provides mortgage banking,
insurance, brokerage, equipment leasing, and capital markets
services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated putative
class action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income security Act of 1974, as amended, remains pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The consolidated putative class action case filed by participants
in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan concerning the
performance of certain investment options available under the
Plan.

In particular, the consolidated complaint alleges that the
company's publicly traded stock was an imprudent investment
option that should not have been offered by the Plan because of
the Company's alleged exposure to losses related to subprime
mortgages.

The complaint names the company, members of the company's Board
of Directors, the company's Benefits Plan Committee, and other
members of the company's management as defendants, and contends
that these defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA
by offering the company's common stock as an investment option in
the Plan.

The complaint does not quantify the alleged damages that the
plaintiffs seek.

On Dec. 10, 2009, the company and the other defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint in its entirety.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- headquartered  
in Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  The company operates an extensive branch
and ATM network throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-
Atlantic states and a full array of technology-based, 24-hour
delivery channels.  The company also serves clients in selected
markets nationally. Its primary businesses include deposit,
credit, and trust and investment management services.  Through
various subsidiaries, the company provides mortgage banking,
insurance, brokerage, equipment leasing, and capital markets
services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: STRH Remains a Defendant in Lehman-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. (STRH) remains a defendant in
the matter In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities
Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, according to SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s May 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Beginning in October 2008, STRH, along with other underwriters
and individuals, were named as defendants in several putative
class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and state and federal courts in
Arkansas, California, Texas and Washington.

Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933 for allegedly false and misleading
disclosures in connection with various debt and preferred stock
offerings of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. and seek unspecified
damages.

All cases have now been transferred for coordination to the
multi-district litigation captioned In re Lehman Brothers
Equity/Debt Securities Litigation pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- headquartered  
in Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  The company operates an extensive branch
and ATM network throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-
Atlantic states and a full array of technology-based, 24-hour
delivery channels.  The company also serves clients in selected
markets nationally. Its primary businesses include deposit,
credit, and trust and investment management services.  Through
various subsidiaries, the company provides mortgage banking,
insurance, brokerage, equipment leasing, and capital markets
services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Seeks Dismissal of Suit over Sale of TRUPs
----------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated amended
complaint arising out of the offer and sale of approximately $690
million of SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities
remains pending, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Beginning in May 2009, the company, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey,
Inc. (STRH), SunTrust Capital IX and officers and directors of
the company and others were named in three putative class actions
arising out of the offer and sale of approximately $690 million
of SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities (TRUPs)
of SunTrust Banks, Inc.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the relevant
registration statement and accompanying prospectus misrepresented
or omitted material facts regarding the company's allowance for
loan and lease loss reserves, the company's capital position and
its internal risk controls.

Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged losses in connection with
their investment in the TRUPs or to rescind their purchases of
the TRUPs.

These cases were consolidated under the caption Belmont Holdings
Corp., et al., v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, and on Nov. 30, 2009, a consolidated amended complaint
was filed.

On Jan. 29, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- headquartered  
in Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  The company operates an extensive branch
and ATM network throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-
Atlantic states and a full array of technology-based, 24-hour
delivery channels.  The company also serves clients in selected
markets nationally. Its primary businesses include deposit,
credit, and trust and investment management services.  Through
various subsidiaries, the company provides mortgage banking,
insurance, brokerage, equipment leasing, and capital markets
services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss "Waterford" Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the matter Waterford
Township General Employees Retirement System v. SunTrust Banks,
Inc. et al., remains pending, according to the company's May 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The company and several of its executive officers are named as
defendants in putative class action securities litigation pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division.

These cases were consolidated under the caption Waterford
Township General Employees Retirement System v. SunTrust Banks,
Inc. et al.  As lead plaintiff, the Waterford Township General
Employees Retirement System filed the Lead Plaintiff's First
Amended Class Action Complaint on Dec. 23, 2009.

The plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of a class of persons and
entities that purchased or acquired the company's stock during
the period July 22, 2008 through Jan. 21, 2009, and allege that
the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to understate the
company's allowance for loan and lease loss reserves, its
provision for loan losses, and the amount of charge-offs related
to its loans.  They further allege that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding, among other
things, the ALLL, its provision for loan losses, and the amount
of charge-offs related to its loans.
Waterford seeks certification of the class and an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.  Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint was filed in February 2010; Waterford's opposition to
the motion to dismiss was due on April 26, 2010; and the
defendants' reply was due on May 26, 2010.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- headquartered  
in Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  The company operates an extensive branch
and ATM network throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-
Atlantic states and a full array of technology-based, 24-hour
delivery channels.  The company also serves clients in selected
markets nationally. Its primary businesses include deposit,
credit, and trust and investment management services.  Through
various subsidiaries, the company provides mortgage banking,
insurance, brokerage, equipment leasing, and capital markets
services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss the matter In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc.
Securities Litigation, where SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc.
(STRH) is a defendant, remains pending, according to SunTrust
Banks, Inc.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

Beginning in July 2009, STRH, certain other underwriters, The
Colonial BancGroup, Inc. and certain officers and directors of
Colonial BancGroup were named as defendants in a putative class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Alabama, Northern District entitled In re Colonial BancGroup,
Inc. Securities Litigation.

The complaint was brought by purchasers of certain debt and
equity securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeks unspecified
damages.  Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading
disclosures in the relevant registration statement and prospectus
relating to Colonial's goodwill impairment, mortgage underwriting
standards and credit quality.

On Aug. 28, 2009, The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. filed for
bankruptcy.

On Sept. 28, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- headquartered  
in Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  The company operates an extensive branch
and ATM network throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-
Atlantic states and a full array of technology-based, 24-hour
delivery channels.  The company also serves clients in selected
markets nationally. Its primary businesses include deposit,
credit, and trust and investment management services.  Through
various subsidiaries, the company provides mortgage banking,
insurance, brokerage, equipment leasing, and capital markets
services.


SYGENTA CORP: Hearing Today in Madison County Atrazine Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at The Madison County Record reports that a
defendant in a series of suits over alleged water contamination
by a common weed killer will once again ask a Madison County
judge to stay the suit until a nearly identical federal case is
resolved.

Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder put off hearing arguments on
Syngenta Crop Protection Inc.'s motion to dismiss or stay the
proposed Madison County class action brought against it by lead
plaintiff Holiday Shores Sanitary District on May 26.

Syngenta's attorney Kurtis Reeg asked Crowder to put off hearing
arguments on the motion due to the need to respond to more than
300 pages of discovery documents delivered the night before the
May hearing.

Holiday Shores proposes to lead a class of Illinois water
providers against makers and distributors of atrazine.

It alleges that the herbicide runs off farmers' fields into
drinking water supplies.

According to the plaintiffs, the contaminated water then causes
medical problems in human beings. However, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has ruled atrazine is safe in water up to three
parts per billion.

Crowder took over the cases last year from Madison County Circuit
Judge Daniel Stack who will retire later this year.

The hearing is set to begin at 10 a.m.

Syngenta asked Crowder to throw out or stay the suit before her
due to the filing of a federal suit against Syngenta earlier this
year.
Lead plaintiff's counsel Stephen Tillery filed the nearly
identical case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois alleging claims against the company on
behalf of water providers in Ohio, Missouri, Kansas and others
states.

Syngenta argues in its May 4 motion that the federal court would
provide the appropriate remedy to the Madison County suit's
potential class and that the company would be fighting the same
suit in two courts.

In his May 25 response, Tillery points to the fact that the
Madison County class is not currently a party to the federal
action.

The motion goes on to argue that the defense is attempting to
overplay what, if any, relief the federal class may receive at
that case's end.

"Consequently the federal case will resolve none of Plaintiffs'
claims before this Court," the motion reads.

The plaintiffs deny the suits duplicate each other and that the
Madison class can even join the federal case.

"The truth is that Illinois courts have no problem letting class
actions proceed even where there are numerous earlier filed class
actions pending in other courts across the country," the motion
argues.

The plaintiffs contend that a stay would also create hardships
for them.

"So staying this case pending the outcome of the federal case
would simply put this case on ice with a guarantee that no
progress will be made in the interim," the motion reads. "Once
the federal case is over, Plaintiffs would be forced to start
anew, and all the while they will continue to suffer
contamination and expense at the hands of Syngenta. Simply put, a
stay of this case pending the resolution of the federal case is
completely illogical, and would be extremely prejudicial to the
Plaintiffs."

Tillery also filed a motion to compel against Syngenta regarding
discovery issues related to absent class members.

Syngenta has also filed its response to certain discovery
matters.

The atrazine cases are just getting into the discovery phases.

Crowder has already refereed several discovery disputes between
the plaintiffs and defendants.

The latest was May 26 when Reeg pointed to the delivery of over
300 pages of discovery at the close of business the night before
the hearing.

The Syngenta suit is one of five filed by Tillery over atrazine
in water in 2004.

The others are also pending before Crowder.

The Syngenta case is Madison case number 04-L-710.


TENNESSEE GAS: Appeal Deadline on "Will Price" Suit Has Passed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The deadline to appeal the order denying class certification
relating to a gas measurement class action against Tennessee Gas
Pipeline Co. and its predecessors has now passed, according to
the Company's May 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended March 31,
2010.

In 1999, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Will Price, et
al. v. Gas Pipelines and their Predecessors, et al., was filed in
the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas against the Company
and a number of its affiliates.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants inaccurately measured
the volume and heating content of gas that resulted in the
underpayment of royalties to royalty owners on non-federal and
non-Native American lands in Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado.

The court has denied motions for class certification, and the
deadline for an appeal of this order has now passed.

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. -- http://www.tennesseeadvantage.com/
-- is one of the five interstate pipelines that make up El Paso
Corporation's Pipeline Group.  Tennessee is comprised of
approximately 14,200 miles and 1.4mm certificated horsepower. The
pipeline stretches from the Mexican border to Canada. Tapping
supply regions in the Gulf of Mexico, Texas, Appalachia, and
Canada, the Tennessee system serves markets across the Midwest
and mid-Atlantic regions, including major metropolitan centers
such as Chicago, New York, and Boston.


TOMOTHERAPY INC: Accused in Wis. Suit of Misleading Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of TomoTherapy
inflated the company's share price through false and misleading
statements, and when the truth came out, $213 million in market
value evaporated in one day, shareholders claim in Dane County
Court, Madison, Wisc.

A copy of the Complaint in The Dixon Family Living Trust v.
TomoTherapy, Inc., et al., Case No. 10CV2888 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Dane
Cty.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/07/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Douglas P. Dehler, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          111 E. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 1750
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: 414-226-9900

               - and -

          Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
          Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
          THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
          885 Arapahoe Ave.
          Boulder, CO 80302
          Telephone: 303-861-3003

               - and -

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Patrick A. Klingman, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          65 Main St.
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: 860-526-1100


TOYOTA MOTOR: Shareholders Vie for Lead-Plaintiff Role
------------------------------------------------------
Edvard Pettersson at Bloomberg News reports that Toyota Motor
Corp. investors alleging the company failed to disclose design
flaws that might cause its cars to suddenly accelerate vied to
become lead plaintiffs in a group of securities class-action
lawsuits.

Lawyers for investors including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Pension Reserves Investment Management Board tried to persuade
U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer to appoint their client as
lead plaintiff in Stackhouse v. Toyota Motor Corp., Case No.
10-cv-00922 (C.D. Calif.).

Lawyers named as lead counsel in a class-action case are entitled
to a larger share of any recovery.

Fischer said she will hold off making a decision until the U.S.
Supreme Court issues its ruling in a lawsuit against National
Australia Bank Ltd. which may limit the ability of foreign
investors to use American courts to sue companies based abroad.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in that case in March.

The Toyota investor with the largest loss among the plaintiffs
before Fischer is Skandia Life Insurance Co., a Swedish company,
which claims it lost $34.9 million. Investors who have the most
at stake financially are given preference to be appointed lead
plaintiff in securities class-action cases.

Fischer asked lawyers in an April 23 order to explain why they
were representing groups of investors, rather than individual
ones, if not for the sole purpose to create a larger loss figure
and have their group be appointed lead plaintiff.

Gerald Silk, a lawyer for a group of five institutional investors
including the Maryland State Retirement and Pension System who
together claim $91.8 million in losses, said his clients had come
together on their own.

                       'Formed Organically'

"This group was formed organically," Silk told the judge. "They
are not the types of people we could control."

The Toyota investors claim the carmaker misled them by not
disclosing flaws in the acceleration system that prompted a
recall of 2.3 million vehicles in North America in January.

Toyota faces more than 300 lawsuits in state and federal court,
including proposed class actions over economic losses and claims
of personal injuries or deaths caused by sudden- acceleration
incidents.


UNITED STATES: Filipino WWII Vets Sue Over Benefit Eligibility
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that three Filipino veterans of
World War II are suing the U.S. government for allegedly making
it too hard to prove they are eligible for long-denied benefits.

The class action lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court in
San Francisco claims the Department of Veterans Affairs has
unfairly excluded thousands of veterans whose archived military
records were destroyed in 1973 fire. Among the plaintiffs is a
blind 91-year-old San Francisco resident, Romeo de Fernandez, who
says he survived the Bataan Death March.

The government's treatment of the 250,000 Filipinos who fought
Japanese soldiers alongside Americans during the war has long
been a sore spot.

Congress passed a law denying them promised veterans' benefits
one year after Japan's surrender.

President Obama last year signed a new law granting $15,000 to
Filipino veterans who had become U.S. citizens and $9,000 to non-
citizens.


UNITED STUDIOS: School Sued for Failing to Pay Minimum Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Colwell, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. United Studios of Self Defense, Inc., Case No. 2010-
00376869 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty. May 28, 2010), accuses
USSD, which operates martial arts training facilities in
California and other states, of failing to pay the legal minimum
wage, failing to pay overtime compensation, failing to provide
meal periods, failing to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failing to timely pay wages upon termination of
employment, and unfair business practices in violation of the
Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ira Spiro, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          Linh Hua, Esq.
          SPIRO MOSS LLP
          11377 W. Olympic Blvd., 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683
          Telephone: (310) 235-2468
          E-mail: ira@spiromoss.com
                  scott@spiromoss.com
                  linh@spiromoss.com

               - and -

          Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
          THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C.
          116 Village Blvd., Suite 200
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 799-1266
          E-mail: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com


VACATION CHARTERS: Class Certified in Pa. for 275 Former Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terrie Morgan-Besecker the The Times Leader reports that
attorneys representing salespersons who claim they were wrongly
paid as independent contractors for selling timeshares at several
resorts in the Poconos have convinced a judge to certify the case
as a class-action lawsuit.

Attorney Mark Kearney said the ruling issued last week by a
Philadelphia County judge will allow approximately 275 people to
join together in a single lawsuit that will seek reimbursement
for taxes they contend were overpaid, as well as compensation for
lost benefits.

The case was filed on behalf of the lead plaintiffs, Albert
Whitehead and Austin Miller-Orteneau of Philadelphia, against
Vacation Charters Ltd. and W. Jack Kalins, owner of the Split
Rock Resort in Lake Harmony and several other timeshare resorts.

The men were paid as independent contractors for timeshare sales
at the resorts, which meant they paid all their own federal
income taxes with no contribution from Kalins, and were not
provided any benefits, such as medical coverage.

                            *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda, Joy A. Agravante,
Ronald Sy and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2010.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *