---

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

             Tuesday, June 22, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 121

                            Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Plaintiffs Want August 9 Trial Date Vacated
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Approval of $12-Mil. Settlement Pending
AGILENT TECH: Final Approval of Varian Case Settlement Pending
ALLIANT ENERGY: Court OKs Summary Judgment Bid in Pension Suit
BP PLC: La. Suit Complains About Use of Corexit as Dispersant

BP PLC: Milberg Files Suit on Behalf of Fla. Property Owners
CAMTEK LIMITED: Bid to Dismiss Lapiner Amended Suit Pending
CRYSTAL RIVER: Brookfield Merger Prompts 3 Class Action Suits
DONALDSON CO: Defends Suit by S&E Quick Lube Over Auto Filters
EASTERN LA REGIONAL: Settlement Approval Expected in September

EPANA NETWORKS: Settles Prepaid Card Suits in N.J. & Calif.
GIANT INTERACTIVE: Defends Consolidated Amended Complaint
HEALTH BENEFITS: Ex-Employee Drops Class Action Lawsuit
JPMORGAN CHASE: HIV/AIDs Patient Sues for FMLA Violations
LOCAL INSIGHT: Faces Lawsuit Over Cincinnati Print Directories

MACY'S INC: Ohio Litigation Over 401(k) Plan Remains Ongoing
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Motion for Lead Plaintiff Remains Pending
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Petition for Review with High Court Pending
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Continues to Defend Suits Over Zicam
MOSAIC FERTILIZER: Court Says Fishermen Can Recover Losses

MYRIAD PHARMA: Expects to be Dismissed From Javelin Merger Suit
NATIONAL SECURITY: Court Certifies Class; Appeal in the Works
NEIMAN MARCUS: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in California
NETLIST INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 30
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Tentative Settlement Reached in GT-R Suit

PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Faces Suit Over Wages & Benefits in Los Angeles
PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Securities Lawsuit Still Pending in Calif.
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Pact
SONY CORP: Sued for DVD/Blu-ray Price Fixing
VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Consolidated Suit Over Merix Buy Still Pending

XFONE INC: Hearing to Approve Class Action Request on Sept. 19
XO HOLDINGS: Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss Hillenmeyer Suit
ZALE CORP: Two Securities Lawsuits Still in Preliminary Stage

* Study Shows Employee Discrimination Class Suit Is Rare

                            *********

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Plaintiffs Want August 9 Trial Date Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the matter Lisa Hashimoto, et al. v. Abercrombie &
Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., ask the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
vacate the previously set Aug. 9, 2010, trial date, according to
the company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1,
2010.

The suit was filed on June 23, 2006, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles.

In that action, the plaintiffs alleged, on behalf of a putative
class of California store managers employed in Hollister and
abercrombie kids stores, that they were entitled to receive
overtime pay as "non-exempt" employees under California wage and
hour laws.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable
relief, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid benefits, penalties,
interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

The defendants answered the complaint on Aug. 21, 2006, denying
liability.

On June 23, 2008, the defendants settled all claims of Hollister
and abercrombie kids store managers who served in stores from June
23, 2002 through April 30, 2004, but continued to oppose the
plaintiffs' remaining claims.

On Jan. 29, 2009, the Court certified a class consisting of all
store managers who served at Hollister and abercrombie kids stores
in California from May 1, 2004 through the future date upon which
the action concludes.  The parties are continuing to litigate the
claims of that putative class.

On May 24, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice that they did not
intend to continue to pursue their claim that members of the class
did not exercise independent managerial judgment and discretion.
They also asked the Court to vacate the August 9 trial date
previously set by the Court.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. -- http://www.abercrombie.com/-- is a
specialty retailer that operates stores selling casual apparel,
such as knit shirts, graphic t-shirts, jeans, woven shirts,
shorts, as well as personal care and other accessories for men,
women and kids under the Abercrombie & Fitch, Abercrombie,
Hollister and RUEHL brands.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Approval of $12-Mil. Settlement Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The approval of the settlement agreement resolving a class action
against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. for $12 million remains pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
according to the company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May
1, 2010.

On Sept. 2, 2005, a purported class action, styled Robert Ross v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Company, et al., was filed against A&F and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of a purported class of all
persons who purchased or acquired shares of A&F's Common Stock
between June 2, 2005 and Aug. 16, 2005.

In September and October 2005, five other purported class actions
were subsequently filed against A&F and other defendants in the
same Court.  All six securities cases allege claims under the
federal securities laws related to sales of Common Stock by
certain defendants and to a decline in the price of A&F's Common
Stock during the summer of 2005, allegedly as a result of
misstatements attributable to A&F.  The Plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages.

On Nov. 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all of these purported
class actions into the first-filed case was filed by some of the
plaintiffs.  A&F joined in that motion.  On March 22, 2006, the
motions to consolidate were granted, and these actions were
consolidated for purposes of motion practice, discovery and
pretrial proceedings.

A consolidated amended securities class action complaint was filed
on Aug. 14, 2006.  On Oct. 13, 2006, all defendants moved to
dismiss that Complaint.  On Aug. 9, 2007, the Court denied the
motions to dismiss.

On Sept. 14, 2007, the defendants filed answers denying the
material allegations of the Complaint and asserting affirmative
defenses.

On Oct. 26, 2007, the plaintiffs moved to certify their purported
class.  After briefing and argument, the motion was submitted on
March 24, 2009, and granted on May 21, 2009.

On June 5, 2009, the defendants petitioned the Sixth Circuit
for permission to appeal the class certification order and on Aug.
24, 2009, the Sixth Circuit granted leave to appeal.

On May 26, 2010, after mediation which commenced on May 17, the
parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
consolidated cases as a class action, subject to Court approval.
The entire $12 million settlement payment will be paid by A&F's
insurers.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. -- http://www.abercrombie.com/-- is a
specialty retailer that operates stores selling casual apparel,
such as knit shirts, graphic t-shirts, jeans, woven shirts,
shorts, as well as personal care and other accessories for men,
women and kids under the Abercrombie & Fitch, Abercrombie,
Hollister and RUEHL brands.


AGILENT TECH: Final Approval of Varian Case Settlement Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval of an agreement to settle class actions against
Agilent Technologies, Inc., over its proposed acquisition of
Varian, Inc., remains pending.

On Aug. 5, 2009, a putative class action was filed in
California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, entitled Feivel
Gottlieb Plan - Administrator Feivel Gottlieb Defined Benefit
Pension Plan DTD 01-01-04 v. Garry W. Rogerson, et al., No. 1-09-
CV-149132.

The action was allegedly brought on behalf of a class of
shareholders of Varian, Inc., against Varian, its board of
directors, Agilent and Cobalt Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Agilent, in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Varian.

A similar action, entitled Stuart Kreisberg v. Garry W. Rogerson,
et al., No. 1-09-CV-149383, was filed in the same court on Aug. 7,
2009.

The actions were subsequently consolidated under the caption
In re Varian, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No.
1-09-CV- 149132, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on
Aug. 14, 2009.

The consolidated amended complaint is also filed on behalf of an
alleged class of Varian shareholders against Varian, its
directors, Agilent and Cobalt.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that Varian's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed acquisition and asserts, among other things, that the
price and other terms are unfair, that Varian's directors have
engaged in self-dealing, and that the disclosures in Varian's Aug.
7, 2009 proxy filing are inadequate.  Agilent and Cobalt are
alleged to have aided and abetted the Varian directors' purported
breaches of fiduciary duties.

The Plaintiffs seek injunctive and other relief, including
attorneys' fees and costs.

On Aug. 19, 2009, another substantially similar putative class
action, entitled Hawaii Laborers Pension Fund v. Varian, Inc., et
al., No. 1-09-CV-150234, was filed in the same court against
Varian, its directors, and Agilent.  Like the consolidated amended
complaint, it asserts claims on behalf of a class of Varian
shareholders, alleges that Varian's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition by,
inter alia, failing to value Varian properly, agreeing to improper
deal terms, engaging in self-dealing and making misleading
disclosures, alleges that Agilent aided and abetted those
purported breaches of fiduciary duties, and seeks injunctive and
other relief (including attorneys' fees and costs).

On Sept. 25, 2009, the parties signed a memorandum of
understanding to settle the class actions.

The settlement provides, among other things, that:

     (i) Varian would make certain agreed-upon disclosures
         designed to supplement those contained in its
         definitive proxy statement filed on Aug. 20, 2009;

    (ii) the litigation will be dismissed with prejudice as to
         all defendants;

   (iii) defendants believe the claims are without merit and
         continue to deny liability, but agree to settle in
         order to avoid the potential cost and distraction of
         continued litigation and to eliminate any risk of any
         delay to the acquisition; and

    (iv) plaintiffs' counsel may seek fees and costs of up to
         $625,000, subject to court approval.

There is to be no payment of money to the alleged class members.
The settlement is subject to execution and delivery of a
stipulation of settlement and other definitive documentation,
confirmatory discovery, the closing of the acquisition, notice to
stockholders, and court approval.

No updates were reported in the company's June 7, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2010.

Agilent Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.agilent.com/-- is a
measurement company providing bio-analytical and electronic
measurement solutions to the communications, electronics, life
sciences and chemical analysis industries.  The company operates
in two business segments: electronic measurement business and the
bio-analytical measurement business.


ALLIANT ENERGY: Court OKs Summary Judgment Bid in Pension Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
granted a plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability in
a lawsuit against the Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan,
according to Alliant Energy Corp.'s June 8, 2010, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

A class action lawsuit was filed against the Alliant Energy Cash
Balance Pension Plan in February 2008 alleging that certain Plan
participants who received distributions prior to their normal
retirement age did not receive the full benefit to which they were
entitled in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 because the Plan applied an improper interest
crediting rate to project the cash balance account to their normal
retirement age.

On June 3, 2010, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment on liability in the lawsuit.  The court also
ruled with respect to damages that prejudgment interest on damages
will be allowed at the prime rate at the time of the judgment and
a pre-retirement mortality discount will apply to the damages
calculation.

A trial on damages is scheduled to begin June 21, 2010.

The plaintiffs submitted reports in September 2009 by their expert
witnesses that quantified the alleged underpayments owed to
plaintiffs between $24 million and $54 million, including
interest.  Alliant Energy disputes these amounts and believes, in
particular as a result of the court's rulings with respect to
damages, that the ultimate liability of the Plan will be less than
this range.

Alliant Energy Corp. -- http://www.alliantenergy.com-- is a
public utility holding company.  The Company has four primary
first tier subsidiaries of Alliant Energy are: Interstate Power
and Light Company (IPL), Wisconsin Power and Light Company
(WPL), Alliant Energy Resources, Inc. (Resources) and Alliant
Energy Corporate Services, Inc. (Corporate Services).


BP PLC: La. Suit Complains About Use of Corexit as Dispersant
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that Oystermen
filed a federal class action against BP and Nalco, which makes the
dispersant chemical that BP has dumped on the oil spill in the
Gulf of Mexico.  The oystermen claim Corexit 9500 is four times
more toxic than oil, and that BP has sprayed more than 1 million
gallons of it onto the Gulf, causing the poison to become "a
permanent part of the seabed and food chain in the biostructure in
the Gulf of Mexico."

BP dumped the Corexit to "disperse" and sink the millions of
gallons of oil from BP's broken wellhead after the April 20
explosion of the Deepwater Horizon that killed 11.

Lead plaintiff Scott Parker claims that more than 1 million
gallons of Corexit "has been sprayed over the Gulf of Mexico and
has caused a toxic chemical to be a permanent part of the seabed
and food chain in the biostructure in the Gulf of Mexico."

Corexit 9500 is four times more toxic than the oil itself,
according to the complaint, "causing an even more dangerous
condition to exist in the Gulf of Mexico than if the oil was
allowed to float to the shoreline."

The class claims the dispersant was used "in an attempt to lessen
the financial burden of BP and to lessen the public reaction to
the oil spill by forcing the oil to the bottom of the Gulf and
thereby obviating the need for shoreline cleanup."

Corexit 9500 has been illegal in the United Kingdom since 1998,
when it was found to be harmful to the food chain.

The oystermen claim Corexit will cause the Gulf of Mexico "to be
contaminated into future years far beyond that which would have
been caused if the oil were allowed to gather on the shoreline."
And they say cleanup workers have and will continue to become sick
from exposure to Corexit 9500.

Although the complaint does not cite it, Corexit 9500 was used in
unprecedented quantities during the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill
off the coast of Alaska; it has been linked to central nervous
system depression, nausea and unconsciousness.  Valdez spill
victims say the chemical can cause liver, kidney damage, and red
blood cell hemolysis with repeated or prolonged exposure through
inhalation or ingestion, and can cause reproduction problems in
women.

According to Nalco's own documents, Corexit 9500 is "hazardous."

Though not cited in the complaint BP also is using Corexit 9527 in
unprecedented quantities to disperse oil.  Corexit 9527 is even
more toxic than 9500.  It contains 38 percent butoxyethanol, a
known animal carcinogen.

Nalco's own documents classify Corexit 9527 as "hazardous."  Its
warning label calls it an eye and skin irritant that poses "acute"
human hazard, and warns that repeated exposure may cause injury to
red blood cells (hemolysis), kidneys or the liver, and excessive
exposure "may cause central nervous system effects, nausea,
vomiting, anesthetic or narcotic effects" and coma.  The warning
states: "Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing."

Nalco's documents also contain an "environmental precaution" that
warns against getting Corexit 9527 on water: "Do not contaminate
surface water."

Critics of BP claim the company could, and should, have used more
effective, less toxic dispersants and say that corporate ties with
Nalco probably influenced BP's decision to use the Corexit
products.

Congressman Jerrold Nadley, D-N.Y., said a former BP executive is
one of Nalco's directors and a former ExxonMobil president is also
on Nalco's board of directors.

"Why would you use something that is much more toxic and much less
effective, other than you have a corporate relationship with the
manufacturer?" Nadler asked BP America Chairman Lamar McKay during
a House committee hearing in May.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in May ordered BP to stop
using Corexit 9500 and 9527 by May 23, but BP continued using the
chemicals anyway.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told BP to look for a less toxic
alternative and to use a less Corexit.

The class of oystermen seeks damages for negligence and product
liability.

They are represented by C. Arlen Braud II of Madisonville, La.

A copy of the Complaint in Parker, et al. v. Nalco Company, et al.
Case No. 10-cv-01749 (E.D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/17/Disperse.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C. Arlen Braud, II, Esq.
          Michelle O. Gallagher, Esq.
          BRAUD & GALLAGHER, L.L.C.
          506 Water St., Suite A
          Madisonville, LA 70447
          Telephone: (985) 845-0372


BP PLC: Milberg Files Suit on Behalf of Fla. Property Owners
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg LLP filed a class action lawsuit on behalf
of all Florida homeowners and Florida lessees of real property
whose enjoyment of the property has been impaired by, or whose
properties have declined in value as a result of, the April 20,
2010, Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion, fire and resultant oil
spill.

As alleged in the complaint, the fire and explosion on the
Deepwater Horizon, its sinking, and the resulting oil spill, were
caused by the negligence of the Defendants; and the resultant oil
spill, and Defendants' inadequate response has caused, and will
continue for some time to cause, severe environmental and economic
damage, including devaluation and invasion of real and personal
property.

The action, Case No. 2:10-cv-00380, is pending in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ft.
Myers Division, against defendants BP, p.l.c., BP America, Inc.,
BP Products North America, Inc, BP America Production Company, BP
Exploration & Production Inc., Transocean, Ltd., Transocean
Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. Transocean Deepwater, Inc.,
Transocean Holdings, LLC, Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, Halliburton
Energy Services, Inc., Anadarko Petroleum Corp, Anadarko E&P
Company LP, Moex Offshore 2007, LLC and Cameron International
Corporation.

The complaint, filed on June 17, 2010, alleges negligence,
negligence per se, private nuisance, trespass, strict liability
under Florida's Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Control Act,
and strict liability for abnormally dangerous, ultrahazardous
activities.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knew of the inherent
dangers in ultra deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and yet
repeatedly chose risky procedures in order to reduce costs, and
made minimal efforts to contain the added risk. Among other
allegations, the complaint alleges that the Defendants put safety
above profits and saved millions of dollars by not producing
necessary engineering documents; by not installing a safety
acoustic switch used on many other rigs; by ignoring safety
protocols and accelerating the cementing process; by ignoring
signs that the blow-out preventer, a key safety device for
offshore wells, was severely damaged and unable to work properly;
and by not installing key sensors that could have shut down the
rig engine before it revved out of control and exploded.

The complaint charges that despite a history of safety violations,
BOP problems, and previous oil spills, and internal reports that
warned Defendants of poor BOP reliability in deep waters,
Defendants took dangerous shortcuts and further exacerbated the
problem by downplaying the severity of the oil spill and otherwise
responding inadequately to the unfolding disaster.  As a result of
the Defendants' negligence, the Plaintiff and the Class Members
face a devaluation of their property, due to oil that has been and
will continue to wash ashore in the Florida coastal zones, and
repugnant and unbearable odor and fumes from the oil which have
caused nausea and breathing irritation to Florida residents.

The complaint has been filed as a class action and can be obtained
from the Court or viewed on Milberg LLP's Web site at
http://www.milberg.com/ No class has yet been certified, and
there can be no guarantee that a class will be certified.

You do not need to contact any lawyer to participate as an absent
class member in a class action.  If you do not retain your own
lawyer and if this action is certified as a class action, you will
be represented as an absent class member by court-appointed class
counsel.  If you have been impacted by the oil spill disaster and
have any questions you may contact:

     Christopher Polaszek, Esq.
     MILBERG LLP
     Corporate Center One
     2202 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite 200
     Tampa, FL 33607

          - and -

     Andrei Rado, Esq.
     Elizabeth Metcalf, Esq.
     MILBERG LLP
     One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor
     New York, NY 10119

Milberg LLP -- http://www.milberg.com/-- was a member of the
Plaintiffs' Coordinating Committee and co-chair of the Plaintiffs'
Law Committee in the massive litigation resulting from the Exxon
Valdez oil spill in Alaska in March 1989.  Milberg has been
representing individual and institutional investors for over 40
years and serves as lead counsel in federal and state courts
throughout the United States.

                      Plaintiff Seeks $5 Mil.

Aisling Swift at Naples Daily News in Florida reports that Cynthia
Joannou -- trustee for The Cynthia Joannou Revocable Trust, and
who owns a Gulf of Mexico beachfront property -- filed a class
action Thursday is seeking at least $5 million from BP Plc and
others to reimburse Florida homeowners affected by the Gulf of
Mexico oil spill.  Ms. Joannou is represented by Andrei V. Rado,
Esq., and Elizabeth Metcalf, Esq., at Milberg LLP in New York, and
Christopher Polascek, Esq., at Milberg LLP in Tampa.  Mr. Rado
declined comment.

The lawsuit, filed before the U.S. District Court in Fort Myers,
alleges BP had a "tarnished" safety record, a "culture of profits
over safety that culminated in disaster," and now has caused
environmental problems for coastal homeowners that will continue
for years.  Ms. Joannou, 48, a North Naples Realtor who sells
properties in Collier and Lee counties, also alleges buyers of
coastal homes are watching the growing oil slick and asking for
guarantees before purchasing homes, while some Realtors are
offering oil-spill addenda allowing contract cancellation or a
delay of closings up to 30 days if signs of the spill show up
within 48 hours of a closing.

"Realtors and brokers are reporting that homebuyers are either
shying away from buying homes on the beach or requiring a 60-day
guarantees that the oil will not affect the beach before signing
real estate contracts," the lawsuit says.

Ms. Joannou has a home on Lely Barefoot Beach in North Naples.
Records show she purchased the Jumento Cay Lane house, off Bonita
Beach Road, for $372,500 in 1997.  Real estate ads show Ms.
Jumenta Cay Lane condos are listing for $3.4 million.  Property
records show the most recent sales were $4.3 million in December
and $3.4 million in April 2007.

The lawsuit alleges Ms. Joannou and others have been subjected to
a substantial and unreasonable invasion of the use and enjoyment
of their homes due to the fumes from the oil spill and "chemical
stew" and Ms. Joannou has experienced a "repugnant and unbearable
odor and fumes . . . like heated oil coming off the water."

No oil or tar balls have washed ashore on Naples beaches and there
are no reports of wildlife being affected in Southwest Florida,
although some property owners did complain of a smell when the rig
was burning.

"Falling real-estate values are one consequence of the worst
environmental disaster in U.S. history as oil continues to gush
from the BP Macondo well," the lawsuit says, noting that
appraisers gave Gov. Charlie Crist a letter saying property owners
will suffer decreased values and urging a property tax adjustment.

BP admitted the disaster has affected demand for Gulf properties,
the lawsuit says, and as of June 3, officials say it paid for 446
claims of lost income from rental properties and others to cover
real-estate sales losses.

The other defendants in Ms. Joannou's lawsuit are BP, BP PLC, BP
America Inc., BP Exploration & Production Inc., Transocean
Deepwater Drilling Inc., Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, Halliburton
Energy Services, Anadarko Petroleum Corp., Moex Offshore 2007 LLC,
and Cameron International Corp.

Ms. Joannou filed her lawsuit 58 days after the spill, which began
with an April 20 explosion and fire on a drilling rig, Deepwater
Horizon.  The rig is owned by Transocean Ltd. and leased by BP
PLC, which is in charge of cleanup and containment.

Ms. Joannou's lawsuit seeks damages for negligence, causing a
private nuisance, trespass, strict liability for abnormally
dangerous ultra-hazardous activities, and violations of statutes
and regulations.  It also seeks punitive damages, which are meant
to punish wrongdoing and send a message to deter others.


CAMTEK LIMITED: Bid to Dismiss Lapiner Amended Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Camtek Limited's motion to dismiss a second amended complaint
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, according to the company's June 7, 2010,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On March 7, 2008, a purported Class Action Complaint, Yuval
Lapiner v. Camtek, Ltd. et al., was filed on behalf of purchasers
of the company's common stock between Nov. 22, 2005, and Dec. 20,
2006.

Mr. Lapiner filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on
Jan. 2, 2009, naming the company and certain of its directors and
officers as defendants.  It alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated there under, and breached fiduciary duties by making
false and misleading statements in the Company's SEC filings and
press releases.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages against the
defendants, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, as
amended, on Feb. 17, 2009, and the Court granted this motion on
June 2, 2009.

However, the Court gave the plaintiff leave to amend his
complaint, which he did when he filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint on July 10, 2009.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
and this motion is still pending.

Camtek Limited -- http://www.camtek.co.il-- designs, develops,
manufactures and markets automated optical inspection (AOI),
systems and related products.  AOI systems are computerized
systems that optically inspect various types of electronic
product components for defects caused during the manufacturing
process.  The AOI systems are used for production processes and
yields for manufacturers in three industries: the printed circuit
board (PCB), industry; the high density substrates for
interconnection of integrated circuit devices (IC) substrate,
industry and the semiconductor manufacturing and packaging
industry.  The systems provide the customers with defect detection
ability.


CRYSTAL RIVER: Brookfield Merger Prompts 3 Class Action Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal River Capital, Inc., is facing three class action lawsuits
in Maryland and New York relating to its proposed merger with
Brookfield Asset Management Inc., according to Crystal River's
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On or around March 2, 2010, plaintiff Fazal Mahmood filed a
complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland
against Crystal River and its Board of Directors asserting claims
on behalf of a putative class of Company shareholders.

On March 2, 2010, plaintiffs Milton P. Silva and Shaher Tadros
filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York, against Crystal River, its Board of Directors,
Brookfield, and B Merger Sub, Inc., asserting claims on behalf of
a putative class of Crystal River shareholders as well as
derivative claims ostensibly on behalf of Crystal River.

On March 5, 2010, plaintiff Gary P. Klahr filed a complaint in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland against Crystal River,
its Board of Directors, Brookfield, and B Merger Sub, Inc.,
asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of Crystal River
shareholders.

On April 29, 2010, the two Maryland actions were consolidated into
one action. In each of these lawsuits, the plaintiffs generally
allege, among other things, that the members of the Company's
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties towards the
plaintiffs and the other public stockholders of Crystal River in
connection with the proposed sale of Crystal River to Brookfield
and Merger Sub. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek, among other
relief, certification of the lawsuits as class actions, an
injunction preventing the Merger from closing, an award of
unspecified damages to the plaintiffs and the class, and an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses, along with such other relief as
the courts deem just and proper.

The Company said it intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits.

Based in New York, Crystal River Capital, Inc. (OTC BB: CYRV)
-- http://www.crystalriverreit.com/-- is a specialty finance
REIT.  The Company invests in commercial real estate, real estate
loans, and real estate-related securities, such as commercial and
residential mortgage-backed securities.


DONALDSON CO: Defends Suit by S&E Quick Lube Over Auto Filters
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donaldson Company, Inc., is defending a suit filed by S&E Quick
Lube relating to aftermarket automotive filters, according to the
company's June 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2010.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a
lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that twelve filter manufacturers, including the company,
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S.
Customers for aftermarket automotive filters.

The lawsuit seeks various remedies, including injunctive relief
and monetary damages of an unspecified amount, and is a purported
class action on behalf of direct purchasers of automotive
aftermarket filters from the defendants.

Parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of a variety
of direct and indirect purchasers of aftermarket filters, have
been filed by other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in
the United States and Canada.

The U.S cases have been consolidated into a single multi-district
litigation in the Northern District of Illinois.

In addition, on April 16, 2009, the Attorney General of the State
of Florida filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois based on these same allegations.

Donaldson Company, Inc. -- http://www.donaldson.com/-- provides
filtration systems.


EASTERN LA REGIONAL: Settlement Approval Expected in September
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Zarembo at The Los Angeles Times reports that lawyers in the
class action suit filed against Eastern Los Angeles County
Regional Center regarding funding on autism therapy, said they
expect the judge to give final approval to the settlement in
September 2010.

The Class Action Reporter on June 21, 2010, reported that the Los
Angeles Superior Court on June 10 issued an Order granting
preliminary approval of a Settlement Agreement in the class action
lawsuit, Benito R., et al. v. Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center,
et al., which was filed on behalf of hundreds of children with
autism against the Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center earlier
this year, after ELARC terminated funding for Developmental,
Individual Difference, Relationship-based treatment services.

Among other things, the Judge's Order requires notice to be mailed
to all members of the class, including every parent of a child
diagnosed with or provisionally diagnosed with autism served (or,
if possible, who will be served) by the East Los Angeles Regional
Center so that they know what is required of ELARC under the terms
of the Settlement Agreement.

According to the Los Angeles Times, ELARC -- one of 21 nonprofits
throughout the state that administer state money for people with
developmental disabilities -- last year informed more than 100
families whose children were receiving DIR that it would no longer
pay for the therapy.  That prompted the Public Counsel Law Center
to file a class-action suit.

LA Times relates that, Gloria Wong, the executive director of the
regional center, at the time, said she was simply enforcing a
mandate from the state Legislature to stop paying for experimental
and non-medical treatments -- part of a broad effort to cut more
than $300 million from the state budget for people with
developmental disabilities.

DIR has not been tested with controlled scientific studies, but
experts testified it is supported by decades of clinical
experience.  Other regional centers pay for DIR.

The Settlement Agreement requires, among other things, that ELARC
continue funding and paying for all DIR or DIR/Floortime treatment
programs for all eligible children who have been diagnosed, or
provisionally diagnosed with autism.  It also enjoins ELARC from:
1) failing to make DIR treatment programs available to Class
Members; 2) classifying, characterizing, identifying or labeling
DIR treatment programs as "experimental," "non-medical therapy,"
"specialized recreation," or "social recreational" as those terms
are used in the Trailer Bill; 3) asking, pressuring, conditioning
or otherwise requiring a Class Member to give up, barter, or
otherwise reduce or terminate another service in order to receive
DIR treatment services; and (4) engaging in any sort of
retaliatory behavior against any Class Member or person associated
with a Class Member.

Earlier this year, the Court issued a preliminary injunction to
reinstate funding for DIR treatment services. The Class Plaintiffs
in this action are represented, on a pro bono basis, by the law
firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and by Public Counsel Law
Center. Additional information about the Class Notices for this
case can be found on ELARC's Web site, beginning on June 15,
http://www.elarc.org/ The Settlement Agreement and the Superior
Court Order are also available at http://www.publiccounsel.org/


EPANA NETWORKS: Settles Prepaid Card Suits in N.J. & Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
       SUMMARY NOTICE OF NATIONWIDE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

IF YOU HAVE PURCHASED ANY EPANA PRE-PAID CALLING CARDS, PLEASE
READ THIS NOTICE. YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A REFUND TO BE USED FOR
ADDITIONAL CALLING CARD MINUTES

     -- Plaintiffs Orlando S. Ramirez and Eddie Bukzam have
reached a settlement of their lawsuit against Epana Networks,
Inc., on behalf of everyone who purchased a prepaid calling card
from Epana anywhere in the United States and who has not
previously returned that calling card for a cash refund or a store
credit.  The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the terms
of the proposed settlement and the benefits available to you under
the settlement, to inform you how this lawsuit and the settlement
may affect your legal rights, and the steps that you must take if
you want to receive benefits under the settlement, which includes
submitting a claim form.

     -- Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit alleging that Epana
distributed or sold prepaid calling cards without fully disclosing
the applicable rates and charges.  Epana denies Plaintiffs'
claims, has asserted numerous defenses, and has vigorously
defended the lawsuit.  The Court has made no determinations about
the correctness or validity of any of the Plaintiffs' contentions
or any of Epana's defenses.

     -- The Court has preliminarily approved a settlement
agreement providing the following benefit for each Settlement
Class member who chooses to remain in the Settlement Class and
participate in the settlement: (A) Epana will provide the
Settlement Class Member with a PIN with a total value of $0.50 for
domestic calls at the rate of $0.10 (10 cents) per minute and
international calls to specific countries at $0.125 (12.5 cents)
per minute ("Refund PIN") for each eligible used calling card PIN
submitted by a Settlement Class member. Refund PINs are non-
transferable and must be used within twelve (12) months after the
date they are issued to the participating member of the Settlement
Class.  (B) To get your Refund PIN, you must contact the
administrator listed below, obtain the required claim form, and
submit that properly completed and signed claim form to the
administrator, postmarked no later than April 19, 2011. (C) If you
do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class as described
below ("opt out"), you will be deemed to have fully and finally
waived and released Epana from any and all claims asserted or that
could have been asserted in the action, and all claims, before any
court or similar body against Epana, its parents, subsidiaries,
affiliates, predecessors, successors, general and limited
partners, and/or any of Epana's past, present, or future officers,
directors, shareholders, employees, insurers, consultants. Without
limiting the scope of this release, the release covers any and all
claims for attorneys' fees, costs or disbursements incurred by
class counsel or any other counsel representing the Plaintiff or
Settlement Class Members, or any of them, in connection with or
related in any manner to the action, the settlement of the action,
or the administration of the settlement, except to the extent
otherwise specified in the settlement agreement. Nothing in this
release shall preclude any action to enforce the terms of the
settlement agreement, including participation in any of the
processes detailed therein.  The Settlement Agreement also
provides for additional relief to the public.  If you would like
to obtain a complete copy of the Settlement Agreement, please
contact Class Counsel, or you may review it at
http://www.epanasettlement.com/or http://www.freedweiss.com/

     -- Attorneys for the Settlement Class are: James E. Cecchi,
Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, 5 Becker Farm
Road, Roseland, New Jersey 07068, as well as others listed in the
Settlement Agreement.  If you choose not to opt out, your
interests will be represented by Plaintiffs through Class Counsel.
If you wish to exclude yourself or "opt out" of the settlement,
you must file a written request to opt out of the Settlement with
the Settlement Administrator before August 11, 2010. The opt-out
request must (a) refer to the "Epana Settlement"; (b) (b) identify
the name and address of the potential Settlement Class Member who
is opting out and state that he/she wishes to be excluded from the
Settlement Class; and (c) state that you are authorized to opt out
of the Settlement Class.  If you opt out, you will not be bound by
the Court's order approving the settlement and judgment, you will
not be entitled to receive any benefit or monetary relief under
this settlement and you will not waive or release any claims
asserted in the lawsuit.

     -- The settlement will not take effect unless and until: (A)
it is finally approved by the Court after the Final Fairness
Hearing and a Final Order and Judgment has been entered by the
Court, and (1) the applicable period for the appeal of the Final
Order and Judgment has expired without any appeals having been
filed, or (2) all such appeals have been dismissed; or (B) the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals has entered a final judgment
affirming the Final Order and Judgment of the Court, which (1) is
no longer subject to any further appellate challenge, or (2) has
been affirmed by the Supreme Court.  If the settlement receives
final judicial approval, it will result in a release by the
Plaintiff and all participating members of the Settlement Class of
all claims as described above.

     -- Any member of the Settlement Class has the right to object
to the proposed settlement and may appear personally or through
counsel at the Final Fairness Hearing and object to the approval
of the settlement.  The Final Fairness Hearing will be held on
September 13, 2010, at 10 a.m., but the Hearing may be adjourned
without further notice to the Class. Even if you object to the
settlement, you may still be entitled to share in the settlement
proceeds. In order to be heard or to have papers or briefs
considered by the court, any objecting Settlement Class member
must file, by August 11, 2010, an original and one copy of the
Settlement Class member's objection with the court at: United
States District Judge Peter G. Sheridan, District Court New
Jersey, Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Building, 402 East State
Street, Trenton, New Jersey 07608. The objection must (a) include
a list of all available PINs and names of Epana Calling Cards that
were purchased by the Settlement Class Member and the approximate
total dollar amount of such purchase(s), (b) attach copies of any
materials that will be submitted to the Court or presented at the
Final Fairness Hearing, (c) be signed by the Settlement Class
member, and (d) clearly state in detail (i) the legal and factual
ground(s) for the objection, (ii) the Settlement Class member's,
name, address and, if available, telephone number, and (iii) if
represented by counsel, such counsel's name, address and telephone
number.  Any objecting Settlement Class member who fails to submit
a timely written objection as required herein and/or appear at the
Final Fairness Hearing shall waive and forfeit any and all rights
that he or she may have to appear separately and/or object, and
shall be bound by all the terms of the settlement and release and
by all proceedings, orders and judgments in this action. Copies of
all documents filed with the Clerk of the court must also be sent
to Class Counsel, the other attorneys for Plaintiff listed in the
Settlement Agreement and Counsel for Epana, David Saenz, Greenberg
Traurig, LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166, and Ian
Marx, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 200 Park Avenue, Florham Park, New
Jersey 07932. IF YOU DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, YOU
NEED NOT APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FILE ANY PAPERS.

     -- If you want additional information about this lawsuit
and its proceedings, contact Plaintiffs' counsel by calling
973-994-1700 or sending an e-mail to info@freedweiss.com.  Please
indicate that you are calling regarding the Epana class action
settlement.  Do not contact the Court, Epana, or Epana's counsel
directly about this lawsuit.

A full-text copy of the settlement is available at no charge at
http://is.gd/cX7kQ

The cases are Orlando S. Ramirez, et al. v. Epana Networks, Inc.,
08-cv-4040 (D. N.J.), and Elsa Jimenez v. Kang's Distribution,
Inc. et al., 09-cv-2107 (C.D. Calif.)

The New Jersey Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James E. Cecchi, Esq.
     CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
     5 Becker Farm Road
     Roseland, New Jersey 07068

          - and -

     Paul M. Weiss, Esq.
     FREED & WEISS LLC
     111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331
     Chicago, Illinois 60602

The California Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
     WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLC
     1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
     New York, New York 10036

Epana is represented in the case by:

     David Saenz, Esq.
     GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
     200 Park Avenue
     New York, New York 10166

          - and -

     Ian Marx, Esq.
     GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
     200 Park Avenue
     Florham Park, New Jersey 07932


GIANT INTERACTIVE: Defends Consolidated Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Giant Interactive Group Inc. continues to defend a consolidated
amended complaint alleging violations of the Securities Act of
1933, according to the company's June 7, 2010, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On Nov. 26 and Dec. 20, 2007, Pyramid Holdings, Inc. and Rosie L.
Brooks, respectively, filed a class action against the company in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, for
alleged violations of federal securities laws with the company's
initial public offering.

On July 30, 2008, the Court consolidated these actions into one
class action and appointed a group of individual shareholders made
up of Dunping Qui, Xie Yong, Linming Shi, and Arthur Michael Gray
(Qui Group) and their counsel as lead plaintiffs and lead
plaintiffs' counsel, respectively, under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.

On Oct. 6, 2008, the Qui Group filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting claims for violations of Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.  The complaint alleges
that plaintiffs purchased ADSs issued pursuant to or traceable to
the company's initial public offering and that the registration
statement and prospectus for that offering contained untrue
statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not
prepared in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that prior to the company's
initial public offering, it implemented a rule change to
discourage "gold farming activities" in ZT Online.  Gold farming
occurs when companies hire individuals to play the game to
generate online currency that is sold on third party websites for
cash.

According to the Complaint, this rule change caused a decline in
average concurrent users (ACU) and peak concurrent users (PCU) and
that the registration statement and prospectus in connection with
the company's initial public offering failed adequately to
disclose these declines.  The Complaint seeks a declaration that
action is a proper class action; damages to class members with
interest; that the initial public offering be rescinded; and
litigation costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees,
accountants' fees and experts' fees.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to
state a claim on Nov. 21, 2008.  This motion has been fully
briefed and was deemed submitted to the Court for decision as of
Feb. 25, 2009.

On Aug. 5, 2009, the Court denied the company's motion to dismiss
the Complaint, because the Court required more facts and evidence
prior to making the ruling.

Subsequently, the company entered and currently is still at the
stage of discovery during which the company and Qui Group would
present more documents and testimony as per the request of the
other party.

Giant Interactive Group Inc. -- http://www.ga-me.com/-- is an
online game developer and operator in China.  The company focuses
on massively multiplayer online (MMO) games that are played
through networked game servers, in which a number of players are
able to simultaneously connect and interact.  The company's three
MMO games include ZT Online, ZT Online PTP, a pay-to-play game
based on the ZT Online free-to-play game, and Giant Online.  ZT
Online, ZT Online PTP, ZT Online Green, ZT Online Classic Edition
and Giant Online together had 1,572,000 quarterly peak concurrent
users and 474,000 quarterly average concurrent users during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.  In addition, it launched two free-to-
play games, ZT Online Green and My Sweetie, and introduced King of
Kings III, or K III, XT Online and The Golden Land in 2009.  In
December 2009 and January 2010, the company acquired two licenses
to operate Elsword and Allods Online, two three dimensional-MMO
games, in mainland China.


HEALTH BENEFITS: Ex-Employee Drops Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Health Benefits Direct Corporation is no longer facing a national
class action lawsuit after its former employee amended his
complaint to specify fellow plaintiffs, according to the company's
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On August 28, 2008, one of former employees of Direct Health
Benefits Direct Corp., the plaintiff, filed a national class
action complaint in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida,
Broward County, Case No. 062008 CA 042798 XXX CE, alleging that
the company breached a contract with employees by failing to
provide certain commissions and bonuses.  The complaint also
contained claims for an accounting and for declaratory relief
relating to the alleged compensation agreement.  The plaintiff
purported to bring these claims on behalf of a class of current
and former insurance sales agents.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  In response,
at the hearing on the Company's Motion to Dismiss, the plaintiff
stated that he would amend the complaint.  The amended complaint
was no longer pled as a class action but, instead, included 64
named plaintiffs.

On April 21, 2010, the Company and the plaintiffs entered into a
memorandum of understanding whereby the Company agreed to pay
$23,500 to settle the case, and the Company and the plaintiffs
agreed to: stay all discovery, mutual releases, no admission of
wrongdoing, no further litigation, confidentiality by the
plaintiffs, and non disparagement by the plaintiffs.  The Company
and the plaintiffs agreed to enter into definitive settlement
agreement as soon as practical.

Radnor, Pennsylvania-based Health Benefits Direct Corp. --
http://www.healthbenefitsdirect.com/-- engages in the direct
marketing and distribution of health and life insurance
products.  The Company operates though two segments, Telesales
and Atiam.


JPMORGAN CHASE: HIV/AIDs Patient Sues for FMLA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
John Doe, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al., Case No. 10-cv-02635 (N.D. Calif.
June 15, 2010), asserts violations of the Family Medical Leave Act
and the California Family Rights Act.  The Plaintiff is filing the
complaint to challenge the Defendants' policy and practice
requiring the disclosure of all health information, including
medical records, no matter how private or sensitive the
information may be, before requests for medical leave can be
processed.

The Plaintiff has been an employee "in good standing" with
JPMorgan Chase for over two years.  In March 2010, the Plaintiff's
physician told him that he needed an operation for the removal of
his gallbladder.  JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a global financial
services firm with assets of $2.1 trillion.

The Plaintiff says that, because of the Defendants' procedures for
taking medical leave, he was compelled to sign a release form
authorizing healthcare providers to furnish JPMorgan Chase private
medical information, even when these went beyond the provisions of
the Family Medical Leave Act.  The Plaintiff discloses he has
another medical condition, specifically HIV/AIDS, which is
private, and which information is irrelevant for the condition for
which he is seeking medical leave.  The Plaintiff had requested
the Defendants to stop implementing this policy but the Defendants
declined.  The Plaintiff has filed timely charges of
discrimination with the California Fair Employment and Housing and
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and is just awaiting
his "right to sue" letters from the Commission.  The Plaintiff
will amend his complaint upon receipt of them.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy Pasternak, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JEREMY PASTERNAK
          A Professional Corporation
          445 Bush St., Sixth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 693-0300
          E-mail: jdp@pasternaklaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua Konecky, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP
          180 Montgomery St., Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com


LOCAL INSIGHT: Faces Lawsuit Over Cincinnati Print Directories
--------------------------------------------------------------
Local Insight Regatta Holdings, Inc., and its affiliate, CBD Media
Finance LLC, are facing a class action lawsuit relating to their
Cincinnati print directories, according to the company's Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.

In March 2010, a complaint was filed against CBD Media Finance
LLC, an affiliate and customer of the Company, relating to CBD
Media's decision to extend by three months the 12-month
publication life of the 2008/2009 editions of its print
directories in the Cincinnati metropolitan area.  Such lawsuit was
brought as a putative class action on behalf of all businesses and
persons that bought advertising in the directories in question.
No class has been certified in this matter. In May 2010, the
plaintiff filed a motion to add The Berry Company as a defendant
in this lawsuit.  CBD Media and the Company believe this lawsuit
has no merit, and they intend to defend this action vigorously.

Headquartered in Englewood, Colorado, Local Insight Regatta
Holdings -- http://www.localinsightregattaholdings.com/ -- is a
publisher of print and online yellow page directories in the
United States.


MACY'S INC: Ohio Litigation Over 401(k) Plan Remains Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Macy's, Inc. continues to defend a purported class-action suit
filed by Ebrahim Shanehchian, an alleged participant in the
company's Profit Sharing 401(k) Investment Plan.

On Oct. 3, 2007, Mr. Shanehchian filed a purported class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on behalf of persons who participated in the 401(k) Plan and
The May Department Stores Company Profit Sharing Plan between Feb.
27, 2005 and the present.

The complaint charges the company, as well as certain current and
former members of its board of directors and certain current and
former members of management, with breach of fiduciary duties owed
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to
participants in the 401(k) Plan and the May Plan, alleging that
the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations and
prospects in relation to the integration of the acquired May
operations, resulting in supposed "artificial inflation" of the
company's stock price between Aug. 30, 2005 and May 15, 2007.

The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
and costs.

No further updates were reported in the company's June 7, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 1, 2010.

Macy's, Inc. -- http://www.macysinc.com/-- formerly Federated
Department Stores, Inc., is a retail company operating retail
stores that sell a range of merchandise, including men's, women's
and children's apparel and accessories, cosmetics, home
furnishings and other consumer goods.  As of Feb. 2, 2008, the
Company operated 853 stores in 45 states, the District of
Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico under the names, Macy's and
Bloomingdale's.  The Company, through its divisions, conducts
electronic commerce and direct-to-customer mail catalog businesses
under the names macys.com, bloomingdales.com and
Bloomingdale's By Mail.  In addition, Macy's, Inc. offers an
online bridal registry to customers.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Motion for Lead Plaintiff Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel in a
putative class action against Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., remains
pending, according to the company's June 7, 2010, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2010.

A putative class action was filed on July 17, 2009 against:

     -- the company;

     -- William J. Hemelt, President and Chief Executive Officer
        (previously Acting President, Chief Financial Office and
        Chief Operating Officer);

     -- Samuel C. Cowley, Vice President of Business
        Development, General Counsel and Secretary;

     -- Timothy L. Clarot, Vice President of Research &
        Development; and

     -- Carl J. Johnson, former President and Chief Executive
        Officer;

alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The suit is Shapiro et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al.,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Case
No. 2:09-cv-01479-ECV.

The lawsuit alleges that the company and the named officers failed
to disclose to the Food and Drug Administration and to the public
information about adverse events regarding the Zicam Cold Remedy
nasal gel products and that the company and such officers made
false and misleading statements regarding the company's compliance
with FDA regulations.

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. -- http://www.matrixxinc.com/--
develops, produces, markets and sells over-the-counter (OTC)
healthcare products with an emphasis on those that utilize
delivery systems that provide consumers with Better Ways to Get
Better.  Through its subsidiary, Zicam, LLC, the company markets
and sells products under the Zicam brand.  The company's product
offerings consist of four product classes within the cough and
cold category: Cold Remedy; Allergy/Sinus; Cough and Multi-Symptom
relief, and other cough/cold.  In addition, the company had sold
products under the Nasal Comfort and Xcid brand names.  Its Zicam
products are marketed in the cough and cold market category.
During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 (fiscal 2009), the
company's top 15 customers accounted for more than 80% of its net
sales and three customers each accounted for more than 10% of the
company's net sales.  In May 2008, the company formed Zicam
Canada, Inc. to commercialize sales of Zicam products in Canada.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Petition for Review with High Court Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.'s petition with the U.S. Supreme Court
for certiorari review after the U.S. District Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit reversed the ruling dismissing a consolidated
class action, remains pending, according to the company's June 7,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010.

Two class action lawsuits were filed in April and May 2004 against
the company, its previous President and Chief Executive
Officer, Carl J. Johnson, and William J. Hemelt its Acting
President, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Financial Officer,
alleging violations of federal securities laws.

On Jan. 18, 2005, the cases were consolidated and the court
appointed James V. Sircusano as lead plaintiff.  The amended
complaint also includes the company's Vice President of Research
and Development, Timothy L. Clarot, as a defendant and was filed
March 4, 2005.

The consolidated case is Sircusano, et al. vs. Matrixx
Initiatives, Inc., et al., in the United States District Court,
District of Arizona, Case No. CV04-0886 PHX DKD.

Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that between October 2003
and February 2004, the company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its Zicam Cold Remedy products,
including failing to adequately disclose to the public the
details of allegations that its products caused damage to the
sense of smell and of certain of the product liability lawsuits.

The company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit and, on March
8, 2006, the company received an Order dated December 15, 2005
granting the motion to dismiss the case, without prejudice.

On April 3, 2006, the plaintiff appealed the Order to the United
States District Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 2:04-CV-
886, and the parties made oral arguments to the Ninth Circuit
Court on June 9, 2009.

On Oct. 28, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court issued its opinion.  The
Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the United States
District Court, District of Arizona, which had dismissed the case.

On Dec. 23, 2009, the Ninth Circuit denied the company's petition
for rehearing.

On Jan. 15, 2010, the Ninth Circuit granted Matrixx's request to
stay the issuance of a mandate while the company petitions the
U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari review.

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. -- http://www.matrixxinc.com/--
develops, produces, markets and sells over-the-counter (OTC)
healthcare products with an emphasis on those that utilize
delivery systems that provide consumers with Better Ways to Get
Better.  Through its subsidiary, Zicam, LLC, the company markets
and sells products under the Zicam brand.  The company's product
offerings consist of four product classes within the cough and
cold category: Cold Remedy; Allergy/Sinus; Cough and Multi-Symptom
relief, and other cough/cold.  In addition, the company had sold
products under the Nasal Comfort and Xcid brand names.  Its Zicam
products are marketed in the cough and cold market category.
During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 (fiscal 2009), the
company's top 15 customers accounted for more than 80% of its net
sales and three customers each accounted for more than 10% of the
company's net sales.  In May 2008, the company formed Zicam
Canada, Inc. to commercialize sales of Zicam products in Canada.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Continues to Defend Suits Over Zicam
---------------------------------------------------------
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., continues to defend a number of
putative class actions over its Zicam Cold Remedy nasal gel
products.

Since 2003, many lawsuits have been filed against the company
alleging that its Zicam Cold Remedy nasal gel products have
caused the permanent loss or diminishment of the sense of smell or
smell and taste.  Prior to the company's receipt of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration's June 16, 2009 warning letter, the number
of lawsuits filed against the company was steadily declining; in
fact, the numbers of pending lawsuits, plaintiffs, new lawsuits
and potential claimants were at their lowest levels since early
2004.

Since the company's receipt of the FDA warning letter, numerous
product liability lawsuits have been filed against the company,
many of which cite the FDA warning letter as support for their
claims.

The lawsuits principally fall into two categories of product
liability claims:

     (i) those seeking compensation for the loss or diminishment
         of the plaintiff's sense of smell or smell and taste,
         alleged to have been caused by the use of Zicam Cold
         Remedy nasal gel products (i.e., personal injury
         claims) and

    (ii) those seeking compensation for the purchase price of
         the Zicam Cold Remedy nasal gel products or various
         forms of equitable relief such as disgorgement of
         profits, restitution and injunctive relief based on
         allegations that the company misrepresented the safety
         and/or efficacy of such products to consumers (i.e.,
         consumer fraud claims).

All of the consumer fraud lawsuits have been filed as class
actions but none of the classes have been certified to date.

On Oct. 9, 2009, a judicial panel ordered the centralization and
transfer of a number of consumer fraud and personal injury
actions pending in federal court to a federal court in the
District of Arizona pursuant to federal multidistrict litigation
procedures.

No further updates were reported in the company's June 7, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010.

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. -- http://www.matrixxinc.com/--
develops, produces, markets and sells over-the-counter (OTC)
healthcare products with an emphasis on those that utilize
delivery systems that provide consumers with Better Ways to Get
Better.  Through its subsidiary, Zicam, LLC, the company markets
and sells products under the Zicam brand.  The company's product
offerings consist of four product classes within the cough and
cold category: Cold Remedy; Allergy/Sinus; Cough and Multi-Symptom
relief, and other cough/cold.  In addition, the company had sold
products under the Nasal Comfort and Xcid brand names.  Its Zicam
products are marketed in the cough and cold market category.
During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 (fiscal 2009), the
company's top 15 customers accounted for more than 80% of its net
sales and three customers each accounted for more than 10% of the
company's net sales.  In May 2008, the company formed Zicam
Canada, Inc. to commercialize sales of Zicam products in Canada.


MOSAIC FERTILIZER: Court Says Fishermen Can Recover Losses
----------------------------------------------------------
Brent Kallestad at The Associated Press reports the Florida
Supreme Court ruled Thursday that commercial fishermen can recover
economic losses caused by polluters.

The fishermen argued that a spill of wastewater in 2004 from
Mosaic Fertilizer LLC's phosphogypsum storage facility near Archie
Creek in Hillsborough County polluted Tampa Bay and reduced the
available supply of fish.  A class action lawsuit alleged that
happened despite repeated warnings from local and state
environmental officials.

Mosaic "owed a duty of care to the commercial fishermen and that
the commercial fishermen have a cause of action sounding in
negligence," the court concluded.

The justices unanimously ruled that fishermen can seek such
recoveries under state law even if they don't own any property
damaged by the pollution.  By a 5-1 vote, they found damages also
are allowed by common law.  The justices overturned two lower
courts that had dismissed the suit.

The decision does not apply to seafood distributors, restaurants
and other businesses that sustain economic losses due to
pollution.

The AP says the decision could establish precedent for future
claims against BP PLC.  A lawyer for Howard Curd and other
fishermen, F. Wallace Pope, Jr., Esq., of Clearwater, said the
decision sets a precedent for future cases.

"This establishes that under Florida law that commercial
fishermen, even though they don't technically own the fish when
they're swimming around, have a protectable interest in the fish
because they're licensed to go out and catch 'em," Mr. Pope said.
"That's the way they earn a living."  Mr. Pope added the state's
pollution statute is strict and succinct and likely to be the
focus of any lawsuits in the BP case.

"This is the kind of damage that is covered by that statute," Mr.
Pope said. "All you have to do is prove the event occurred and who
did it. You don't have to prove anything else."

The state has already formed a special legal team to assist
Florida citizens in recovering economic damages resulting from the
April 20 explosion of a BP PLC oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico that
has resulted in millions of gallons of crude oil seeping onto the
coasts of several southeastern states.

The AP says former Florida Supreme Court Justice Arthur England,
Jr., a lawyer for Mosaic, did not immediately return a call
seeking comment.

The Mosaic Co. produces and markets concentrated phosphate and
potash crop nutrients, nitrogen fertilizers and feed ingredients
for the global agriculture industry.  Headquartered in Plymouth,
Minn., the Company operates in four segments: Phosphates, Potash,
Offshore and Nitrogen.


MYRIAD PHARMA: Expects to be Dismissed From Javelin Merger Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Myriad Pharmaceuticals, Inc., anticipates that it will be
dismissed from a class action lawsuit relating to the failed
merger with Javelin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to the
company's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Beginning on December 23, 2009, several putative stockholder class
action lawsuits were filed against Javelin, members of Javelin's
board of directors, MPI and MPI Merger Sub in the Suffolk Superior
Court Business Litigation Session in Massachusetts.  The actions,
first served on Javelin on
January 5, 2010, styled Schnipper v. Watson, et al., Parrish v.
Watson, et al., and Andrews v. Driscoll, et al., allege, among
other things, that the members of Javelin's board of directors
violated their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize value for
Javelin's stockholders when negotiating and entering into the
Merger Agreement.  The complaints also allege that MPI, MPI Merger
Sub and Javelin aided and abetted those purported breaches.
Plaintiffs sought, among other things, to enjoin the Proposed
Merger or, in the alternative, to rescind the Proposed Merger
should it occur before the lawsuits were resolved.

On January 13, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed
order consolidating the actions.  The order was entered by the
court on January 21, 2010.  Pursuant to the stipulation,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
February 23, 2010.  The Stockholder-Plaintiffs also filed an
"emergency" motion seeking expedited discovery, which defendants
opposed.  After a March 12, 2010, hearing on the motion for
expedited discovery, the court denied the motion.

On April 19, 2010, after receipt of an acquisition proposal from
Hospira, Inc., Javelin terminated the Merger Agreement with
Myriad.  On May 3, 2010, the Stockholder-plaintiffs filed an
emergency motion seeking leave to serve a second amended complaint
challenging the potential acquisition of Javelin by Hospira.  In
addition, on May 5, 2010, the stockholder-plaintiffs filed an
emergency motion seeking expedited discovery from Javelin and an
order preliminarily enjoining the potential acquisition of Javelin
by Hospira.

MPI and MPI Merger Sub are not named as defendants in the putative
second amended complaint and plaintiffs' emergency motions do not
seek any relief against MPI or MPI Merger Sub. MPI anticipates
that the stockholder-plaintiffs will voluntarily dismiss MPI and
MPI Merger Sub from the litigation.

Myriad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.myriadpharma.com/--
is a specialty pharmaceutical company.  The company focuses on
discovering, developing and commercializing small molecule drugs
that address severe medical conditions with markets, including
cancer and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection.  Its
product pipeline includes clinical and preclinical drug
candidates with distinct mechanisms of action and chemical
structures.


NATIONAL SECURITY: Court Certifies Class; Appeal in the Works
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Security Group, Inc., plans to appeal a trial court's
decision certifying the class in a putative class action filed in
Alabama, according to the company's May 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

The Company has been sued in a putative class action in the State
of Alabama.  The Plaintiff alleges entitlement to, but did not
receive, payment for general contractor overhead and profit in the
proceeds received from the Company concerning the repair of the
Plaintiff's home.  Plaintiff alleges that said failure to include
GCOP is a material breach by the Company of the terms of its
contract of insurance with Plaintiff and seeks monetary damages in
the form of contractual damages.

A class certification hearing was held on March 1, 2010, with the
trial court taking the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
under advisement.  On May 10, 2010, the trial court issued its
ruling granting Plaintiff's motion to certify the class.  The
Company plans to immediately appeal the trial court's ruling in
this matter.

Elba, Alabama-headquartered National Security Group, Inc. --
http://www.nationalsecuritygroup.com/-- is an insurance holding
company.  The company, through its property and casualty
subsidiaries, primarily writes personal lines coverage, including
dwelling fire and windstorm, homeowners, mobile homeowners and
personal non-standard automobile lines of insurance in 11 states.
The company, through its life insurance subsidiary, offers a basic
line of life, and health and accident insurance products in six
states.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus, Inc., faces a class action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
according to the company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May
1, 2010.

On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was filed by Sheila Monjazeb, individually and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
against the company, Newton Holding, LLC, TPG Capital, L.P. and
Warburg Pincus, LLC.

The Plaintiff alleges that the company and other defendants have
engaged in various violations of the California Labor Code and
Business and Professions Code, including without limitation:

     (1) asking employees to work "off the clock,"

     (2) failing to provide meal and rest breaks to its
         employees,

     (3) improperly calculating deductions on paychecks
         delivered to its employees, and

     (4) failing to provide a chair or allow employees to sit
         during shifts.

The Plaintiff seeks certification of the case as a class action,
reimbursement for past wages and temporary, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief preventing defendants from allegedly
continuing to violate the laws cited in the Complaint.

Neiman Marcus, Inc.'s -- http://www.neimanmarcusgroup.com/--
operations include the Specialty Retail Stores segment and the
Direct Marketing segment.  The Specialty Retail Stores segment
consists primarily of Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman stores.
The Direct Marketing segment conducts both online and print
catalog operations under the Neiman Marcus, Horchow and Bergdorf
Goodman brand names.


NETLIST INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider final approval of Netlist, Inc.'s $2.6
million settlement of a consolidated class action complaint will
take place on September 30, 2010, in New York, according to the
company's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2010.

Beginning in May 2007, the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the Company's underwriters were named as defendants
in four purported class action shareholder complaints, two of
which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and two of which were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. These
purported class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of persons
and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's November 30,
2006 initial public offering.

The lawsuits were consolidated into a single action -- Belodoff v.
Netlist, Inc., Lead Case No. SACV07-677 DOC -- which is currently
pending in the Central District of California. Lead Plaintiff
filed the Consolidated Complaint in November 2007. Defendants
filed their motions to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in
January 2008. The motions to dismiss were taken under submission
in April 2008 and on May 30, 2008, the court granted the
defendants' motions. However, plaintiffs were granted the right to
amend their complaint and subsequently filed their First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint in July 2008. The defendants
filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint in January 2009,
and on April 17, 2009, the court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss.  However, plaintiffs were again granted the right to
amend their complaint.

Plaintiffs' filed their Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint in May 2009. Generally, the Second Amended Complaint,
like the preceding complaints, alleged that the Registration
Statement filed by the Company in connection with the IPO
contained untrue statements of material fact or omissions of
material fact in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of Securities Act
of 1933.  Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint in June 2009.  The motions to dismiss were taken under
submission in August 2009 and on September 1, 2009, the Court
granted the defendants' motions. However, plaintiffs again were
granted the right to amend their complaint.

In December 2008, the parties reached a tentative agreement in
principle to settle the class action. In February 2010, the
parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
documenting the essential terms of the proposed settlement,
informed the court of their proposed settlement, and drafted a
joint motion to submit to the court for preliminary approval of
the proposed settlement. Under the settlement agreement presented
to the court for approval, plaintiffs and the class will dismiss
all claims, with prejudice, in exchange for a cash payment of $2.6
million. The Company's directors' and officers' liability insurers
will pay the settlement amount in accordance with the Company's
insurance policies.

On April 19, 2010, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement.  A final settlement approval hearing is
scheduled to be held on September 30, 2010.

Despite the proposed agreement to settle this action, the Company
believes that the allegations lack merit and, if necessary,
intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted. The Company
makes no assurances at this time that the court will grant final
approval of the proposed settlement terms or that the matter
ultimately will be settled.

Founded in 2000 and headquartered in Irvine, California, Netlist,
Inc. -- http://www.netlist.com-- is the leading provider of high-
performance modular memory subsystems to the world's premier OEMs.
Netlist specializes in bridging the widening gap between the
system OEM's requirements and the capabilities of the IC
manufacturer. Our patented memory subsystem technologies overcome
density, performance, and cost limitations, effectively blending
commodity components with their inherent deficiencies into highly
reliable, optimized memory solutions.


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Tentative Settlement Reached in GT-R Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------

            NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

       If You Are a Resident of the U.S. or its Territories
      Who Purchased a Model Year 2009 Nissan GT-R Automobile
    A Proposed Class Action Settlement May Affect Your Rights.

A Federal Court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer. You are not being sued.

     * A Settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit
for individuals or entities that reside in the U.S. and its
territories who purchased a Model Year 2009 Nissan GT-R automobile
from a Nissan dealership (an " Initial Purchaser") or a previous
2009 GT-R owner (a "Subsequent Purchaser").

     * The Proposed Settlement resolves a class action lawsuit in
federal court.  Plaintiff claims that Nissan manufactured and
distributed 2009 GT -R vehicles which were defective,
misrepresented the performance capabilities of the 2009 GT -R,
and, without disclosure, refused to honor customer warranties for
damage that occurred as a result of the defect.  Nissan denies
all the allegations in the lawsuit.  More specifically, Nissan
denies that there was a design or manufacturing defect, denies
misrepresenting the performance capabilities of the 2009 GT-R, and
denies that it refused to honor customer warranties for
resulting damage without disclosure.  The Court has not made a
final decision about the issues in this lawsuit.

     * If the Proposed Settlement is approved, defendant Nissan
North America, Inc. ("Nissan") will offer to each Class Member
who currently owns a Model Year 2009 Nissan GT-R the following:

       (1) after presenting a Model Year 2009 Nissan GT-R at a
           GT-R Certified Nissan dealer with a transmission in
           operable condition and upon agreeing to receive a free
           Transmission Control Module programming upgrade,
           Nissan will not deny warranty coverage for transmission
           damage based on VDC OFF usage prior to the date of this
           Notice; and

       (2) upon submitting a timely and proper Claim Form and
           after a reasonable processing period, a $75 coupon
           (transferable to a subsequent GT-R purchaser) for
           service at a GT-R Certified Nissan dealership.

       The warranty period continues to run from the date the
       vehicle was delivered to the first retail buyer or put into
       use, whichever is earlier.

     * The lawyers who represent the Plaintiff will ask the Court
       for an award of fees and expenses for themselves, plus an
       amount representing reimbursement of costs and an incentive
       award for Plaintiff.  The Court will decide what amounts
       are reasonable.  The request for attorneys' fees and costs
       will not be more than $150,000.

     * Nissan has also agreed to pay Plaintiff Torres $31,500.
       This amount was determined as follows: $25,000 as
       reimbursement for the expenses Plaintiff Torres incurred
       when he replaced the transmission on his 2009 GT-R; $1,500
       for reimbursement for costs associated with pursuing this
       class action; and $5,000 as an incentive fee for pursuing
       this class action.

     * The awards of attorneys' fees and payment to the Plaintiff
       will not reduce the benefits available to the Class.

     * Your legal rights will be affected whether you act or do
       not act. Please read this Notice carefully.

Claim Forms are due December 31, 2010.  Objections to the Proposed
Settlement are due August 2, 2010.

A full-text copy of the Notice is available at no charge at
http://is.gd/cU0Oe

The case is Robert Harris v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No.
08-cv-7815 (C.D. Calif.)  The judges hearing the case are United
States District Court Judge George H. King and United States
Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh.  Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mitch Kalcheim, Esq.
     KALCHEIM LAW GROUP, P.C.
     9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 508
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Telephone: (310) 461-1210
     Facsimile: (310) 461-1212
     E-mail: Mitch@Kallawgroup.com


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Faces Suit Over Wages & Benefits in Los Angeles
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., faces a putative class suit
captioned Ned Nelson, as an individual and on behalf of others
similarly situated, vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., Case
No. BC 436947, filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, according
to the company's June 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1,
2010.

On April 30, 2010, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company alleging various violations of
California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break
rules and regulations.  The complaint seeks class certification,
the appointment of the plaintiff as class representative and an
unspecified amount of damages and penalties.

The company intends to file an answer denying all of the
allegations and asserting various defenses.

Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. -- http://www.pacsun.com/--
is a leading specialty retailer rooted in the California
lifestyle.  The company sells casual apparel with a limited
selection of accessories and footwear designed to meet the needs
of teens and young adults.  As of May 1, 2010, the company
operated 758 PacSun stores and 125 PacSun Outlet stores for a
total of 883 stores in 50 states and Puerto Rico.


PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Securities Lawsuit Still Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prosper Marketplace, Inc., continues to defend a securities class
action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, California, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On November 26, 2008, plaintiffs Christian Hellum, William
Barnwell and David Booth, individually and on behalf of all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company, certain of its executive officers and its
directors in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, California.  The suit was brought on behalf of all loan
note purchasers in the Company's online lending platform from
January 1, 2006, through October 14, 2008.  The lawsuit alleges
that Prosper offered and sold unqualified and unregistered
securities in violation of the California and federal securities
laws.  The lawsuit seeks class certification, damages and the
right of rescission against Prosper and the other named
defendants, as well as treble damages against Prosper and the
award of attorneys' fees, experts' fees and costs, and pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest.

Some of the individual defendants filed a demurrer to the First
Amended Complaint, which was heard on June 11, 2009, and sustained
by the court with leave to amend until July 10, 2009.  The
plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 10, 2009, to
which the same individual defendants demurred.  On September 15,
2009, this demurrer was sustained by the court without leave to
amend.

Prosper's insurance carrier with respect to the class action
lawsuit, Greenwich Insurance Company, has denied coverage.  On
August 21, 2009, Prosper filed suit against Greenwich in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, California.
The lawsuit seeks a declaration that Prosper is entitled to
coverage under its policy with Greenwich for losses arising out of
the class action lawsuit as well as damages and the award of
attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

Prosper Marketplace, Inc. -- http://www.prosper.com/-- is an
online marketplace for person-to-person lending.  Prosper's
website provides an online marketplace for loans where people list
and bid on loans with interest rates of return determined through
Prosper's online auction platform.


SONIC SOLUTIONS: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
gave its final approval to the settlement agreement in a putative
shareholder class action against Sonic Solutions, according to the
company's June 7, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2010.

On Oct. 4, 2007, a putative shareholder class action was filed
against the company and various of its executive officers and
directors, premised on allegations concerning the granting of
stock options by the company and the alleged filing of false and
misleading financial statements.

On March 21, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs comprised
of persons that purchased the company's shares between Oct. 23,
2002 and May 17, 2007.

On May 27, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a "corrected" consolidated
amended complaint which alleges various violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules thereunder.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on November 25, 2008 and on
April 6, 2009, the judge issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the company's motion to dismiss, with leave to
amend.

On May 8, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first amended class action
complaint, alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), 20(a),
and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act.

In July 2009, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle this action.

On Oct. 15, 2009, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement
providing for the creation of a settlement fund of $5
million to satisfy claims submitted by class members and to pay
any attorneys fees awarded by the Court.

As part of the settlement, the company's Directors and Officers
liability insurers agreed to fund the settlement amount.

On Dec. 2, 2009, the court preliminarily approved the settlement.

On April 8, 2010, the settlement was formally approved and a final
judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice was entered.  The
company's D&O liability insurance has covered the legal fees and
costs associated with the legal action, including payment of legal
fees of $700,000 million during fiscal 2010.

Sonic Solutions -- http://www.sonic.com/-- develops products and
services that enable the creation, management and enjoyment of
digital media content across a variety of technology platforms.
The company's products and services offers technologies to
consumers, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), enterprises,
high-end professional digital versatile disc (DVD) authoring
experts and developers.  The company distributes its products and
services through retailers and distributors, personal computer
(PC) and consumer electronics (CE) OEMs, Internet Websites,
including http://www.roxio.com/and other channels.  The company
operates in two segments: Roxio Consumer Products and Premium
Content.


SONY CORP: Sued for DVD/Blu-ray Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------
A nationwide class action charges Sony Corp. and other large
manufacturers of optical disc drives used in CD, DVD and Blu-ray
players of price-fixing.  Attorneys at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP representing class members continue to pursue evidence of
their claims.

In this landmark case filed in the U.S. District Court in
California in April 2010, consumers accuse the tech industry of
allegedly conspiring to manipulate prices of optical disc drives
found in most computers, entertainment systems and gaming consoles
in the United States.

"These machines are found in nearly every home, office and
school," says Steve Berman, Esq., managing partner of Hagens
Berman.  "And tech companies have bullied us into overpaying for
this equipment, knowing that we depend on this technology each and
every day."

Hagens Berman is interested in receiving additional information
that will help protect consumers' interests in the civil suit
against the tech industry.  Owners of these popular devices are
encouraged to join the civil case before August 5, 2010.  A
criminal investigation by the Department of Justice is also under
way.

Attorneys from Hagens Berman were recently appointed interim class
counsel in the civil suit against tech giants including Sony,
Samsung, Toshiba, Hitachi, LG Technology and Philips.  Mr. Berman
and fellow attorney, Jeff Friedman, believe hardware manufacturers
of disc drives and CD/DVD players conducted anti-competitive
business practices to create artificially high prices for products
featuring these components and eliminated new market competitors.

"We intend to prove this high-tech cartel ends up costing
consumers hundreds of millions of dollars a year," Mr. Berman
continued. "Our system is predicated upon the use of fair and open
competition to drive innovation and keep prices in line for
consumers."

The ODD market has dramatically increased over the last two
decades and is a multi-billion dollar industry worldwide.  ODD
products can copy or play digital entertainment content via a CD
or DVD, and are usually included in a range of products, from
laptops or desktop computers to gaming consoles and DVD players.

In recent years, many of the world's leading makers of ODD
products came together through joint ventures and long standing
business relationships to allegedly set high market barriers and
fix prices on CD and DVD products, the lawsuit states.  The
lawsuit also states that the Department of Justice is currently
investigating the technology industry for anti-competitive conduct
and price-fixing of ODD products.

Attorneys with Hagens Berman believe these business practices
created an anti-competitive marketplace by giving ODD industry
leaders an uninterrupted opportunity to collaboratively discuss
pricing, capacity utilization and other prospective market
information.

The strong collaboration between ODD industry leaders caused
potential and emerging competitors to refrain from entering the
ODD market, the lawsuit states.  Furthermore, the lawsuit claims
that consumers were forced to pay inflated prices for ODD
products.

Hagens Berman is representing consumers in the class-action
lawsuit against big tech companies that make optical disc drives.
Those who purchased a laptop, desktop computer, gaming console or
entertainment player that features an optical disc drive after
November 1, 2005, are encouraged to join this case at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/ODD

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com/-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in San
Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, and Phoenix.
Since 1993, HBSS continues to successfully fight for consumer
rights in large, complex litigation.


VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Consolidated Suit Over Merix Buy Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Viasystems Group Inc. continues to face a consolidated class
action over its acquisition of Merix Corporation, which was
consummated in February after plaintiffs failed to obtain an
injunction order, according to the company's Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

On October 13, 2009 and November 5, 2009, respectively, Asbestos
Workers Pension Fund and W. Donald Wybert, both former Merix
shareholders, filed putative class action complaints in Oregon
state court (Multnomah County), on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, against Merix, the members of its board
of directors and Viasystems.  The complaints, which were
substantively identical and sought to enjoin the Merix
Acquisition, alleged, among other things, that Merix' directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Merix' shareholders by
attempting to sell Merix to Viasystems for an inadequate price and
that Viasystems aided and abetted those breaches.

On November 23, 2009, the court entered an order consolidating the
two cases.  On or about December 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which largely
mirrored the original complaints, but also added Maple Acquisition
Corp. (the merger vehicle) as a defendant and alleged that Merix'
proxy statement for the Merix Acquisition was materially
deficient.

On January 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary
restraining order and a preliminary injunction to enjoin the
shareholder vote on the Merix Acquisition, scheduled to take place
on February 8, 2010.  On January 29, 2010, the defendants filed
oppositions to plaintiffs' motion, and, on February 2, 2010,
plaintiffs filed their reply.  On February 5, 2009, following oral
arguments, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion.

The Merix Acquisition was consummated on February 16, 2010.

Viasystems Group, Inc. -- http://www.viasystems.com/-- is a
technology leader and a worldwide provider of complex multi-layer,
printed circuit boards (PCBs) and electro-mechanical solutions (E-
M Solutions). Its PCBs serve as the "electronic backbone" of
electronic equipment, and its E-M Solutions products and services
integrate PCBs and other components into electronic equipment,
including metal enclosures, cabinets, racks and sub-racks,
backplanes, cable assemblies and busbars. Viasystems' 13,000
employees around the world serve more than 800 customers in the
automotive, industrial and instrumentation, telecom,
computer/datacom and military/aerospace markets.


XFONE INC: Hearing to Approve Class Action Request on Sept. 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Israeli court will consider on September 19, 2010, whether to
approve or disapprove a class action request filed against Xfone,
Inc.'s subsidiary, Xfone 018 Ltd., according to Xfone, Inc.'s Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On January 19, 2010, Eliezer Tzur, et al., filed a request to
approve a claim as a class action against Xfone 018 Ltd., the
Company's 69% owned Israel based subsidiary, and four other
Israeli telecom companies, all of which are entities unrelated to
the Company, in the District Court in Petach Tikva, Israel.

The Petitioners' claim alleges that the Defendants have not fully
fulfilled their alleged legal requirement to bear the cost of
telephone calls by consumers to the Defendants' respective
technical support numbers. One of the Petitioners seeks damages
for the cost those telephone calls allegedly made by him during
the 5.5-year period preceding the filing of the Class Action
Request, which he assessed at NIS 54.45 (approximately $15).

The Class Action Request, to the extent it pertains to Xfone 018,
states total damages of NIS 7,500,000 (approximately $2,000,000)
which reflects the Petitioners' estimation of damages caused to
all consumers that allegedly called Xfone 018's technical support
number during a certain period defined in the Class Action
Request.

A court hearing with respect to the approval or disapproval of the
Class Action Request has been scheduled for September 19, 2010.
Xfone 018 intends to vigorously defend the Class Action Request.

Xfone, Inc. -- http://www.xfone.com/-- is a holding and
managing company providing international voice, video, and data
communications services with operations in the United States,
the United Kingdom, and Israel offering a range of services,
which includes local, long distance and international telephony
services; video; prepaid and postpaid calling cards; cellular
services; Internet services; messaging services (Email/Fax
Broadcast, Email2Fax and Cyber-Number); and reselling
opportunities.


XO HOLDINGS: Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss Hillenmeyer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
XO Holdings, Inc., is awaiting the outcome of its motion to
dismiss a class action complaint filed by a shareholder in
Delaware, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On July 21, 2009, an XOH shareholder, Don Hillenmeyer, filed under
seal in the Delaware Court of Chancery a Complaint titled
"Verified Derivative and Class Action Complaint." On August 6,
2009, XOH filed a redacted version of the Complaint in the
Chancery Court. The Complaint names as defendants individual
members of the Company's Board of Directors and ACF Holding, an
entity controlled by Carl C. Icahn, the Chairman of our Board of
Directors and majority shareholder, and names XOH as the nominal
defendant. The Complaint challenges, among other things, ACF
Holding's then-recent proposal to acquire all of the outstanding
XOH common shares which it does not already own, and alleges
various breaches of fiduciary duties. The parties have entered
into a Stipulation and Order Extending Time to Answer and agreed
to stay proceeding with the case until Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint.

On December 15, 2009, based on plaintiff's motion, the court
entered an order dismissing that portion of the suit that sought
to enjoin ACF Industries Holding Corp.'s July 9, 2009 proposal to
acquire all of the shares of XO common stock that ACF and its
affiliates did not already own.

On January 7, 2010 the Defendants filed a motion to stay or
dismiss the remaining portion of the suit in favor of the NY
litigation (R-2 v. Icahn et al). On January 26, 2010, Plaintiff
filed an Amended Complaint. On February 18, 2010, Defendants filed
a supporting brief for its motion to dismiss. On March 26, 2010,
plaintiff filed its answering brief to defendants' motion to
dismiss or stay. Defendants reply brief was filed on
April 13, 2010.

XO Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.xo.com/-- is the holding company
of XO Communications, LLC (XOC) and Nextlink Wireless, Inc.
(Nextlink).  XO Communications is a leading provider of 21st
century communications services for businesses and communications
services providers, including 50 percent of the Fortune 500 and
leading cable companies, carriers, content providers and mobile
operators.  Nextlink, whose services going
forward have been integrated into XOC's Carrier Services business
unit, has historically provided alternative access, backhaul and
diverse network solutions and services for the carrier, business
and government markets.


ZALE CORP: Two Securities Lawsuits Still in Preliminary Stage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class action lawsuits against Zale Corporation are
in the preliminary stage, according to the company's June 7, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2010.

In November 2009, the company, and four former officers, Neal L.
Goldberg, Rodney Carter, Mary E. Burton and Cynthia T. Gordon,
were named as defendants in two purported class-action lawsuits
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.

The suits allege various violations of securities laws arising
from the financial statement errors that led to the restatement
completed by the company as part of its Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2009.

The lawsuits request unspecified damages and costs.

Zale Corporation -- http://www.zalecorp.com/-- is a specialty
retailer of diamonds and other jewelry products in North America,
operating approximately 1,900 retail locations throughout the
United States, Canada and Puerto Rico, as well as online.  Zale
Corporation's brands include Zales Jewelers, Zales Outlet,
Gordon's Jewelers, Peoples Jewellers, Mappins Jewellers and
Piercing Pagoda.  Zale also operates online at
http://www.zales.com/, http://www.zalesoutlet.com/and
http://www.gordonsjewelers.com/


* Study Shows Employee Discrimination Class Suit Is Rare
--------------------------------------------------------
Employment discrimination lawsuits are one of the largest
categories of civil cases filed in the federal court.  Yet, widely
reported class actions lawsuits brought in recent years, like
those against WalMart, Mitsubishi and other well-known
corporations, are extremely rare, according to a new study
released by the American Bar Foundation.  Most people who file
employment discrimination lawsuits do so as solo plaintiffs and
are likely to receive modest settlements if they receive anything
at all.

"Individual Justice or Collective Legal Mobilization? Employment
Discrimination Litigation in the Post Civil Rights United States,"
published in the June 2010 issue of the Journal of Empirical Legal
Studies, studies employment discrimination cases filed in federal
courts between 1987 and 2003.  Laura Beth Nielsen, Robert L.
Nelson and Ryon Lancaster reveal the startling finding that the
overwhelming majority of employment discrimination cases consist
of a solitary plaintiff.  Cases involving multiple plaintiffs,
class actions and representation by the EEOC or a public interest
law firm are extraordinarily rare.  More than 40 percent of
plaintiffs either have their cases dismissed or lose at summary
judgment.  The other half are likely to settle very early in the
process.  Only 6 percent of those filing employment discrimination
lawsuits in federal court go to trial, where their chances of
winning are 1 in 3.

The study draws data from case filings in the recent decades that
some scholars refer to as "the post civil rights era" in the
United States, a time in which anti-discrimination law has shifted
from attacking blatant exclusion of minorities and women from
market opportunities to addressing a broader set of protected
classes, including the aged and disabled.  The new study delves
into how such lawsuits fare in the courts and what determines
their outcomes. The findings have implications for the
relationship between law and workplace discrimination, and,
perhaps, for the legitimacy of law itself.

"There is a lot of speculation about what kinds of claims make up
the bulk of employment discrimination litigation, but these
debates are rarely informed by the numbers," said Nielsen,
research professor at the American Bar Foundation and associate
professor of sociology and director of the Legal Studies Program
at Northwestern University. "For example, many commentators claim
that class action lawsuits are quite common.  In reality, they
make up less than 1 percent of the federal caseload."

The study explains outcomes of these cases in detail.  In
"Individual Justice," the authors show that for plaintiffs without
legal representation, the prospect of receiving even a modest
settlement or going to trial is slim. 20 percent of plaintiffs are
not represented by lawyers.  Over one-half of them have their
cases dismissed.  Nielsen explained, "most cases don't get
anywhere near trial. Many plaintiffs, especially those without
legal representation, are dismissed or lose on summary judgment.
Many companies offer token settlements early in the process." She
concluded, "As a result, very few cases make it to trial.  And in
those, plaintiffs mostly lose."

Co-authors with Nielsen are American Bar Foundation director and
Northwestern University professor Robert L. Nelson and ABF faculty
fellow Ryon Lancaster of the University of Chicago.

Professor and expert on employment civil rights, Samuel Estreicher
of New York University Law School said, "This kind of careful
research about what actually happens when people file
discrimination lawsuits is unprecedented and vitally important for
policy making," as he underscored the report's value for policy-
makers, academics and lawyers.

For more information on the study's data set, please contact:

     Laura Beth Nielsen
     Telephone: (312) 988-6574
     E-mail: lnielsen@abfn.org

The American Bar Foundation --
http://www.americanbarfoundation.org/-- is a research institute
for the empirical study of law.  An independent, non-profit
organization for more than 50 years, ABF seeks to advance the
understanding and improvement of law through research projects of
unmatched scale and quality on the most pressing issues facing the
legal system in the United States and the world.


                            *********

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, Rousel Elaine Fernandez,
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  * * *