---

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

              Monday, June 28, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 125

                            Headlines

AG EDWARDS: Plaintiff Atty. Wants Deal Objectors to Post Bond
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Accused in N.Y. of Misleading Shareholders
APOLLO GROUP: Loses Securities Suit After 9th Cir. Reversed
BANCO SANTANDER: Faces Investor Suits Over Madoff Exposure
BANCOLOMBIA SA: Fiduciaria Defends Suit over Pensions

BANCOLOMBIA SA: Fiduciaria Defends Suit Over Santa Sofia Housing
BANCOLOMBIA SA: Unit Defends Suits in Narino, Sucre & Cauca
BANK OF THE WEST: Sued for Excessive and Unlawful Overdraft Fees
BAPTIST MEMORIAL: Court Strikes Down Expert Witness' Report
BAYER CORPORATION: 7th Cir. Junks Appeal to Remand Orders

BP PLC: NY State Pension Fund Sues, Hires Cohen Milstein
CERTAINTEED CORP: July Hearing Set on Settlement of Class Suit
CORVEL CORP: Defends Lawsuit by Illinois Health Care Providers
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Final OK of Settlement in Williams Case Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Plaintiffs' Appeal of Summary Judgment Pending

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Denies Rule 23 Class Certification
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Defends "Hawk" Complaint in Washington
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Pytelewski Suit in Calif.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Grants Summary Judgment vs. Plaintiffs
COSTCO WHOLESALE: FLSA Claim in "Ward" Conditionally Certified

DELL INC: Final Approval of $40 Million Settlement Pending
EBAY INC: Court Enters Default Judgment on PayPal Suit
ELDERS LIMITED: Shareholders Eye Class Suit; Taps Slater Firm
GENEREX BIOTECHNOLOGY: Faces "Solis" Suit in California
HAWAII: NGO Sues to Reclaim Management of Heeia State Park

ILLINOIS SCHOOL OF HEALTH: Faces Class Suit on Nursing Program
JEWISH HOSPITAL: Sued for Breach of Patient Confidentiality
KITEC FITTING: Deadline to File Proofs of Claim on July 31
KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: South Kendall & Keys Gate Willing to Settle
LAWN MOWER: Wisconsin Court Takes Settlement Under Advisement

MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Defends Securities Suit in Texas
NATHAN'S FAMOUS: Motion to Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit Approved
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Sup. Ct. Says Aussie Investors Can't Sue in NY
NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY: Class Action Costs May Reach $1 Million
NOVA SCOTIA: Govt's Lawyer says Pollution Class Too Large

PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Fishermen Sue for Anti-Competitive Practices
PHILIP MORRIS: Mass. Court Certifies Class Suit for CT Scan Costs
QUEBEC: Status Indians' Suit Over Fuel Tax Payment Not Yet Filed
TAKE-TWO: Inks Stipulations to Settle "GTA" Suit in New York
TAKE-TWO: Awaits Court OK of Settlement in Stock Backdating Suit

TOYOTA MOTOR: Agrees to Settle "Rees-Levering" Suit in Calif.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Suits Over Recall of Toyota and Lexus Models
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Bondholder's Suit in California
UNION CARBIDE: NGOs Say Funds for Bophal Clean-up Not Enough
WE GIVE TO GET: Class Suit Alleges Deceptive Business Practices

WHITNEY CANADA: Court to Rule on Class Petition by September

                            *********

AG EDWARDS: Plaintiff Atty. Wants Deal Objectors to Post Bond
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis Business Journal's Rick Desloge reports that a $60
million settlement in a class-action lawsuit against the former
A.G. Edwards Inc. will bring Clayton law firm Blitz Bardgett &
Deutsch a share in $21 million in legal fees.

St. Louis Circuit Judge Angela Quigless approved the settlement in
the five-year legal battle's final court order May 21.  On June
21, attorney Robert Blitz filed motions requiring attorneys who
objected to the settlement to post bond.  That motion is still
under consideration.

Bill McClellan, writing for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, relates
that Ted Frank, Esq., founder of the Center for Class Action
Fairness, returned to Judge Quigless' courtroom on June 21, to
appeal her May decision approving the settlement.

Daniel Fisher at Forbes relates, "As Ted Frank of the Center for
Class Action Fairness describes it, the settlement probably has a
real-world value of $8 million -- $6 million in cash and a
blizzard of coupons that might be redeemed to the tune of $2
million."

According to Mr. Fisher, the class-action attorneys want objectors
to place a $325,000 bond with the court before they proceed.
"This, presumably, to make sure clients aren't delayed in
receiving their three annual coupons of $8.22 each to defray the
management fees on mutual funds they bought through A.G. Edwards.
The plaintiff lawyers and Judge Quigless paint this as a $60
million settlement.  But $21 million of the $26 million in cash
will go to the lawyers, Frank notes in his objection, and the rest
of the purported value is only realized if more than  1 million
customers dutifully mail in their $8.22 coupons each year for
three years," Mr. Fisher writes.

Business Journal notes the three firms that served as co-lead
counsel -- the 18-attorney Blitz Bardgett and New York City firms
Stull, Stull & Brody and Milberg LLP -- are expected to receive a
larger portion of the settlement fees. Seven other firms will
receive smaller amounts. The only other St. Louis firm among those
plaintiff law firms was Holloran White Schwartz & Gaertner, where
former Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White is listed as
the firm contact on the case.

The lawsuit alleged A.G. Edwards breached its fiduciary duty when
it failed to disclose arrangements with mutual fund families that
paid to be listed among A.G. Edwards' preferred mutual fund
providers.  Wells Fargo acquired the former A.G. Edwards business
when it bought Wachovia at the end of 2008.

At $21 million, attorney fees would comprise about 35% of the $60
million settlement and more than 80% of $26 million in cash that
A.G. Edwards/Wachovia has agreed to contribute to a settlement
fund.  The balance of the settlement is in credit vouchers for
customers who held certain mutual funds.

Documents on how the law firms are splitting the money are not
included in the court records.  Mr. Blitz declined to discuss his
firm's share of the settlement.

However, Mr. Blitz said that from a procedural standpoint, A.G.
Edwards' attorneys fought to have the case dismissed during much
of the last five years.  Documents in the case show three times
A.G. Edwards' attorneys sought to transfer the case to federal
court, which if it had jurisdiction, would have dismissed the
case, Mr. Blitz said.  A.G. Edwards attorneys twice appealed the
case to the Missouri Court of Appeals in St. Louis; both times the
appellate court denied A.G. Edwards attorneys and both times A.G.
Edwards attorneys sought hearings before the Missouri Supreme
Court.

The settlement in the St. Louis Circuit Court case calls for some
1.7 million A.G. Edwards customers who held certain mutual funds
between April 2000 and April 2005, and who have remained Wells
Fargo customers, to share in $34 million of fee vouchers.  Those
class members would receive fee vouchers of $24.65 per eligible
account, which could be redeemed over three years.  Class members
who no longer hold funds would be eligible for $20.42 cash per
former account, according to settlement documents.

Revenue sharing between investment firms and mutual fund companies
is common practice in the industry, but regulators require the
relationships be disclosed to investors.  Teresa Dougherty, a
spokeswoman for Wells Fargo Advisors, acknowledged the practice is
permitted but said the company settled the case to put the matter
behind the firm.

"While we always acted in accordance with those (SEC and Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority) rules and in the best interests of
our customers, we settled this matter to avoid the costs, risks
and uncertainty of further litigation," Ms. Dougherty said in a
statement.

Judge Quigless presided at a hearing in May to determine whether
the settlement was fair and reasonable.  Mr. Frank objected to the
settlement.  Judge Quigless ruled against him.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Accused in N.Y. of Misleading Shareholders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim Anadarko
Petroleum inflated its share price through false and misleading
reports about its joint venture with BP on the Deepwater Horizon
drilling rig, in a class action in Manhattan Federal Court.

Patricia Hurtado and Bob Van Voris at Bloomberg News report that
the plaintiff, Anadarko shareholder Jerry D. Goodwin, seeks to
represent a class of hundreds of thousands of Anadarko
shareholders whose shares dropped in value from June 12, 2009
through June 9, 2010.

According to Bloomberg, the plaintiffs said, "defendants continued
to issue materially false and misleading statements representing
the company would likely incur only approximately $177.5 million
in liability. . . . However, these statements were materially
false and misleading."

The plaintiffs also allege that the venture's oil spill response
was a "complete sham" and that Anadarko knowingly undertook the
joint venture despite the "terrible safety record" of BP.

"As a result of these egregious and willful safety violations,
Anadarko, a 25 percent owner, was on notice of its need to inspect
and scrutinize the actions of its business partner in operating
the Macondo/Deepwater Horizon well site."

John Christiansen, a spokesman for The Woodlands, Texas-based
Anadarko, said in an e-mail that the company believes the suit "is
without merit."

The suit, which includes claims for securities fraud, doesn't
specify any damages.

The suit is Jerry D. Goodwin v. Anadarko Petroleum, Case No.
10-cv-4905 (S.D.N.Y).


APOLLO GROUP: Loses Securities Suit After 9th Cir. Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc. said the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit has reversed a lower court's ruling in favor of the
Company and ordered the lower court to enter judgment against the
Company in accordance with the jury verdict in securities
litigation arising out of a 2003 program review by the U.S.
Department of Education, Apollo Group Inc. Securities Litigation.

Erin Conroy at The Associated Press says the Ninth Circuit
reinstated an award to plaintiffs of about $280 million.

"The Company is disappointed in the Ninth Circuit's decision, and
believes that the lower court's well-reasoned decision in its
favor was correct," said P. Robert Moya, senior vice president,
general counsel and secretary for Apollo Group, Inc. "We will
explore all available options for seeking further review of the
Ninth Circuit's decision."

Appellate Argument Overview

Under securities law, to prevail at trial, the plaintiff had to
prove that a "corrective disclosure" -- a disclosure that reveals
to the market the falsity of prior statements or omissions --
caused the price of Apollo's stock to decline and, consequently,
caused the losses of the plaintiff class.

When the contents of the initial government report at issue were
reported by major business publications including The Wall Street
Journal, Apollo's stock price did not decline by a statistically
significant amount.  Consequently, the plaintiff pointed to a
downgrade by a single market analyst one week later -- a downgrade
that made no mention of the report's contents and contained no new
facts -- and argued that it caused a decline in the price of
Apollo stock for which the plaintiff class of shareholders should
be compensated.

Although the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, Apollo
argued, and the district court agreed, that the analyst report
contained nothing new about the initial government report or its
effects.  The information that the plaintiff argued was newly
disclosed by the analyst report was either clearly disclosed in
previous news reports, or was not accurate.  The district court
recognized that neither false information nor previously disclosed
information can correct anything.  Accordingly, the district court
ruled that the jury's apparent finding that the downgrade was a
corrective disclosure was not supported by any evidence, and
therefore failed as a matter of law.

Litigation Background

This case, Apollo Group Inc. Securities Litigation, was a
consolidated securities class action brought by the Policemen's
Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago.  It stemmed from allegations
about the non-disclosure of an initial government report involving
the manner in which Apollo subsidiary University of Phoenix
compensated its enrollment counselors.  The report's allegations,
which were first raised in a False Claims Act lawsuit filed in
2003 by two private plaintiffs and then repeated with striking
similarity in the initial government report at issue, have been
largely discredited in recent years.  The False Claims Act case
was recently resolved, importantly with no admission of liability,
wrongdoing, noncompliance or violation.

Apollo Group Inc. Securities Litigation was tried in Federal
District Court in Arizona beginning November 14, 2007.  The jury
found in favor of the plaintiff on January 16, 2008, and the
plaintiff class was awarded damages of up to $5.55 per share.  On
February 13, 2008, Apollo filed post-trial motions in which it
asked the trial court to: (1) reverse the erroneous verdict; (2)
order a new trial; or (3) condition denial of Apollo's motions on
the plaintiff's acceptance of a reduced amount of damages not to
exceed $3.49 per share.  On August 4, 2008, the trial court
overturned the erroneous jury verdict and resolved the case in
favor of Apollo, finding that an analyst report on which the
plaintiff's case heavily relied was not a corrective disclosure.

The Associated Press' Ms. Conroy relates that the Department of
Education last week closed a more than yearlong review into
financial aid practices at the University of Phoenix schools, with
Apollo agreeing to return $1.8 million to students and the
government.  The University of Phoenix is the largest for-profit
school in the U.S. The for-profit education sector has come under
increased regulatory scrutiny by the Obama administration as
student loan defaults rise.

The AP notes Apollo Group has estimated that the potential loss
from the pending litigation could be as high as $225 million,
excluding a $44.5 million charge it took in the second quarter
related to the lawsuit.

"Obviously, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling last night now means
that potential losses could be much higher," Sterne Agee analyst
Arvind Bhatia wrote in a note to investors.

More information on the case may be found in Apollo's Legal
Information Center at http://www.apollolegal.com/

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu/-- is one of the
world's largest private education providers and has been in the
education business for more than 35 years. The Company offers
innovative and distinctive educational programs and services both
online and on-campus at the high school, undergraduate, masters
and doctoral levels through its subsidiaries: University of
Phoenix, Apollo Global, Institute for Professional Development,
College for Financial Planning and Meritus University.  The
Company's programs and services are provided in 40 states and the
District of Columbia; Puerto Rico; Canada; Latin America; and
Europe, as well as online throughout the world (data as of May 31,
2010).


BANCO SANTANDER: Faces Investor Suits Over Madoff Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------
Grupo Santander faces lawsuits initiated by investors with
exposure to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.

Investigation by the SEC into the alleged fraud of Bernard L.
Madoff Investment Securities LLC took place in December 2008.  The
exposure of customers of the Group through the subfund Optimal
Strategic US Equity was EUR2.330 billion, of which EUR2.010
billion related to institutional investors and international
private banking customers, and the remaining EUR320 million were
in the investment portfolios of the Group's private banking
customers in Spain.

As of June 10, 2010, certain lawsuits have been filed against the
Group in relation to this matter in various different
jurisdictions, including a class action lawsuit in the United
States.

The claims have been initiated by investors with investments with
exposure to Madoff Securities, including holders of shares in
Optimal Strategic, holders of financial structured products whose
value and profitability were linked to the evolution of some
Optimal funds (among them, Optimal Strategic) and holders of life
insurance products which had as its underlying security a bond
whose value and profitability was linked to the evolution of
Optimal funds (among them, Optimal Strategic).  All these
proceedings are ongoing.

No additional information was disclosed in Banco Santander, S.A.'s
June 10, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Banco Santander, S.A. -- http://www.santander.com/-- is a
financial group operating principally in Spain, the United
Kingdom, Portugal, other European countries, Brazil and other
Latin American countries and the United States, offering a range
of financial products.  It operates in four segments: Continental
Europe, United Kingdom, Latin America and Sovereign. Continental
Europe segment covers all retail banking business (including Banco
Banif, S.A. (Banif), its specialized private bank), wholesale
banking and asset management and insurance conducted in Europe,
with the exception of the United Kingdom.  United Kingdom segment
includes retail and wholesale banking, asset management and
insurance conducted by the various units and branches of the
Company in the United Kingdom.  Latin America segment includes the
specialized units in Santander Private Banking, as an independent
globally managed unit.  Santander's business in New York is also
managed in this area.


BANCOLOMBIA SA: Fiduciaria Defends Suit over Pensions
-----------------------------------------------------
Bancolombia S.A.'s subsidiary, Fiduciaria Bancolombia S.A., is
defending a class action suit claiming the payment of ex gratia
pensions to 303 retirees belonging to Cajanal which is being heard
by the Third Labor Court of the Circuit of Buenaventura, according
to the company's June 11, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

This payment was suspended on the recommendation of the Advisory
Council of the National Public Pension Fund, as well as an order
issued to the Consorcio Fopep 2007 consortium by Cajanal
suspending the payment of ex gratia pensions to the 303 retirees
due to alleged irregularities in recognizing said pensions.  This
action is currently awaiting the involvement of the Colombian
Ministry of Finance and Public Credit.  The corresponding
contingency is considered remote by the Bank's legal counsel.

Bancolombia S.A. -- http://www.grupobancolombia.com/-- is a full-
service financial institution that provides a range of banking
products and services to a diversified individual and corporate
customer base throughout Colombia, as well as in other
jurisdictions, such as Panama, El Salvador, Puerto Rico, the
Cayman Islands, Peru, Brazil, the United States and Spain. The
Bank manages its business through six main operating segments:
Retail and Small Business Banking, Corporate and Governmental
Banking, Treasury, Offshore Commercial Banking, Leasing and All
Other Segments.  Together with its subsidiaries, the Bank provides
a range products and services, including savings and investment,
financing, treasury, comprehensive cash management, foreign
currency, bancassurance and insurance, brokerage services,
investment banking, and asset management and trust services.  As
of Dec. 31, 2009, the Bank's consolidated branch network consisted
of 900 offices.


BANCOLOMBIA SA: Fiduciaria Defends Suit Over Santa Sofia Housing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bancolombia S.A.'s subsidiary, Fiduciaria Bancolombia S.A., is
defending a class action filed by the co-owners of the Santa Sofia
Housing Estate, according to the company's June 11, 2010, Form 20-
F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The suit was filed against the Bogota Mayor's Office, Fiducolombia
S.A. (now Fiduciaria Bancolombia S.A.) and others, claiming that
the deterioration to the property was caused by flaws in the
terrain, and therefore no building permit should have been issued.

The judge ordered evidence to be heard as requested by the
parties.

According to the company, the legal counsel in charge of this case
considers that a non-favorable ruling is possible.

Bancolombia S.A. -- http://www.grupobancolombia.com/-- is a full-
service financial institution that provides a range of banking
products and services to a diversified individual and corporate
customer base throughout Colombia, as well as in other
jurisdictions, such as Panama, El Salvador, Puerto Rico, the
Cayman Islands, Peru, Brazil, the United States and Spain. The
Bank manages its business through six main operating segments:
Retail and Small Business Banking, Corporate and Governmental
Banking, Treasury, Offshore Commercial Banking, Leasing and All
Other Segments.  Together with its subsidiaries, the Bank provides
a range products and services, including savings and investment,
financing, treasury, comprehensive cash management, foreign
currency, bancassurance and insurance, brokerage services,
investment banking, and asset management and trust services.  As
of Dec. 31, 2009, the Bank's consolidated branch network consisted
of 900 offices.


BANCOLOMBIA SA: Unit Defends Suits in Narino, Sucre & Cauca
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bancolombia S.A.'s subsidiary, Factoring Bancolombia S.A. is
defending class action suits being heard by administrative courts
in the Departments of Narino, Sucre and Cauca.

Factoring received two official summonses issued by Colombia's
Central Bank to all financial institutions, given the lawsuits it
received from a group of debtors holding obligations based on the
UPAC system.

The company does not consider that this represents a contingency
for Factoring Bancolombia S.A. Compania de Financiamiento since
the company does not have and has never had any loans based on the
UPAC system

No additional details was reported in Bancolombia S.A.'s
June 11, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Bancolombia S.A. -- http://www.grupobancolombia.com/-- is a full-
service financial institution that provides a range of banking
products and services to a diversified individual and corporate
customer base throughout Colombia, as well as in other
jurisdictions, such as Panama, El Salvador, Puerto Rico, the
Cayman Islands, Peru, Brazil, the United States and Spain. The
Bank manages its business through six main operating segments:
Retail and Small Business Banking, Corporate and Governmental
Banking, Treasury, Offshore Commercial Banking, Leasing and All
Other Segments.  Together with its subsidiaries, the Bank provides
a range products and services, including savings and investment,
financing, treasury, comprehensive cash management, foreign
currency, bancassurance and insurance, brokerage services,
investment banking, and asset management and trust services.  As
of Dec. 31, 2009, the Bank's consolidated branch network consisted
of 900 offices.


BANK OF THE WEST: Sued for Excessive and Unlawful Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saynyohoh Dee, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Bank of West, Case No. 10-cv-02736 (N.D. Calif.
June 22, 2010), accuses the full-service commercial bank of
unfairly and unlawfully assessing and collecting from its
customers excessive overdraft fees through its practice of
re-sequencing debit transactions from highest to lowest, rather
than in the order they were made, to allow multiple non-sufficient
fund charges from its customers' accounts.  Were it not for this
re-ordering of the transactions, there would otherwise be
sufficient funds in the accounts, Ms. Dee says.  Ms. Dee adds that
Bank of the West's practices violate the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing implied in the Deposit Agreement as well as the
consumer protection laws of California.

Ms. Dee is a resident of California whose Bank of the West debit
card was charged multiple non-sufficient fund charges due to Bank
of the West's overdraft re-sequencing policy.  Ms. Dee says she
suffered injury in fact and lost money and property as a result.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311
          Telephone: (602) 776-5925

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6978

               - and -

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          Alisa A. Martin, Esq.
          HARRISON, PATTERSON & O'CONNOR LLP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6990


BAPTIST MEMORIAL: Court Strikes Down Expert Witness' Report
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Wilemon at The Daily News in Memphis, Tenn., reports lawyers
for Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp., who have filed a motion to
have class action status removed from a lawsuit alleging unfair
pay practices, scored a victory on Monday.  U.S. Magistrate Judge
Charmiane G. Claxton struck down a report from expert witnesses on
behalf of the employees who are suing.

Employees in various departments of Baptist hospitals contend the
health care system violated labor laws by automatic meal
deductions from their paychecks and 30-minute payroll deductions
for lunch breaks.

James Allen Frye, a nurse who formerly worked for Baptist, filed
the lawsuit in November 2007.  About 400 plaintiffs, who worked in
several of the hospitals' departments, signed up as plaintiffs in
the case.

U.S. District Judge Samuel H. Mays Jr., the presiding judge over
the case, granted "conditional certification" in September 2008,
but left the door open for Baptist to later argue in the second
stage of the legal proceedings that class action status was not
appropriate because of the "individualized nature" of the
employees' work positions.

After the period passed for employees to join the suit and the
discovery process concluded, Baptist filed a motion this year to
decertify the case from class action status.  Baptist in court
papers said the employees do not meet the legal standard of being
similarly situated.

"It is evident that the opt-in plaintiffs are subject to extremely
varied employment setting and individualized defenses, which would
present significant fairness and manageability problems if this
matter were to proceed as a collection action," lawyers for
Baptist said in the motion.  "As a practical matter, the trial of
plaintiffs' claims would consist of hundreds of 'mini-trials' in
which each plaintiff tried to prove a series of small, off-the-
clock claims based on disparate, individualized circumstances and
subject to particular defenses, covering a period of two or three
years."

Lawyers for the employees responded with a court filing that
included an expert report from Gerald Barrett, an industrial-
organizational psychologist with more than 40 years experience in
human resource management, and Dennis Doverspike, a professor of
psychology at the University of Akron and employment consultant.

"It is our conclusion that Baptist Memorial Hospital had a policy
that shifted responsibility for compliance with (Fair Labor
Standards Act) provision from the employer to the employee," the
experts wrote in the report.

"When combined with a lack of training, inconsistent operational
practices and a climate that emphasized service first, this led to
situations where employees did not understand the meal break
policy, were not aware of the importance of complying with the
exemption procedure or were discouraged from logging exceptions
due to the necessity of a supervisor approval."

But the court will not consider the report.  It was struck down
after lawyers for Baptist objected because the participation of
Barrett and Doverspike in the case was not revealed during the
discovery process.

Alan Crone, Esq., the lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the order to
strike the report was not a setback.  "We're confident that the
court is going to deny the motion to decertify," Mr. Crone said.
The plaintiffs have strong individual cases even if the suit is
declassified, he said.

"It's just a matter do you proceed in a more efficient manner of
the collective action or do you proceed individually," Mr. Crone
said.  "Based on the facts and the law, we're fairly confident
that the court will deny the motion to decertify."

Ayoka Pond, public relations manager for Baptist Memorial Health
Care, issued a statement to The Daily News.  "While we do not
comment on ongoing litigation, it's important to note that most of
the plaintiffs are former employees," she said. "We believe this
case is without merit.  We value our employees and treat them with
respect and fairness."

The plaintiffs' counsel may be reached at:

     Alan G. Crone, Esq.
     CRONE & MASON PLC
     5100 Poplar Avenue, Suite 3200
     Memphis, Tennessee TN (USA) 38137
     Telephone: (901) 683-1850
     Facsimile: (901) 683-1963


BAYER CORPORATION: 7th Cir. Junks Appeal to Remand Orders
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied petitions
by Bayer Corporation, Bayer Healthcare LLC, and Bayer Healthcare
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for leave to appeal remand orders issued by
the district court in four cases.

In five separate, mostly identical complaints in state court,
plaintiffs sued Bayer for personal injuries allegedly caused by
Trasylol.  Bayer removed, invoking the "mass action" provision of
the CAFA, which allows the removal of cases joining the claims of
at least 100 plaintiffs that otherwise meet CAFA's jurisdictional
requirements.  The district court remanded four of the five cases
because they contained fewer than 100 plaintiffs.

Bayer Corp. appealed, claiming that plaintiffs cannot divide the
cases into separate, identical pleadings in order to avoid federal
jurisdiction.

A three-judge panel concluded that class action laws intended to
allow plaintiffs to divide cases in order to choose where they are
heard.  The court also said that cases do not meet the act's
definition of a mass action.

"Congress appears to have foreseen the situation presented in this
case and specifically decided the issue in the plaintiffs' favor,"
Circuit Judge Joel Flaum said.

The court upheld the decision to remand the cases, which will be
heard individually in St. Clair County.

A copy of the decision in Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corporation,
et al., No. 10-8003 (7th Cir.); Brown, et al., v. Bayer
Corporation, et al., No. 10-8004 (7th Cir.); Bancroft, et al. v.
Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 10-8005 (7th Cir.); and Lecker, et
al. v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No 10-8006 (7th Cir.), is
available at:

     http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/YS195M3U.pdf


BP PLC: NY State Pension Fund Sues, Hires Cohen Milstein
--------------------------------------------------------
New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, as trustee of the
$132.6 billion New York State Common Retirement Fund, has hired
the law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC to represent
the Fund in a class action against BP Plc.  Mr. DiNapoli said the
Fund will seek lead plaintiff status in the action that stems from
BP's disastrous Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill in the
Gulf of Mexico in April.

"It's my duty to protect the interests of the Fund and the
retirees and employees who rely on it," Mr. DiNapoli said. "BP
misled investors about its safety procedures and its ability to
respond to events like the ongoing oil spill and we're going to
hold it accountable."

Mr. DiNapoli said he is seeking to lead the class action against
BP to give the Fund and other investors their best chance at
recovering damages sustained from the decline in shareholder value
subsequent to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.  Mr.
DiNapoli said the Fund held more than 19 million shares at the
time of the event.

The Fund provides benefits to more than one million active and
retired state and local government employees, police officers, and
firefighters. In addition to investment earnings, the Fund is
funded by contributions by state and local government employers
and employees.

Marc Lifsher, writing for The Los Angeles Times, reports that the
U.S.'s largest pension fund, the $200-billion California Public
Employees' Retirement System, said it currently owns about 60
million BP shares that have dropped in value by more than $240
million.  But CalPERS is not aware of the New York litigation,
said spokesman Clark McKinley.  The fund would deal with any
potential complaints about BP through its normal corporate
governance procedures, he said.

LA Times says the $132-billion California State Teachers'
Retirement System, which held BP stock worth $86 million on
June 8, said it is not part of the New York legal action.

Steve Peoples at The Providence Journal reports that Rhode
Island's public pension fund may join the class-action lawsuit
against BP.  "Once it's instituted, we will [join the lawsuit],"
said Mark A. Dingley, chief of staff to General Treasurer Frank T.
Caprio, whose office oversees the fund. "We're not taking a lead
role because we haven't lost as much as some of the other funds."

Mr. Dingley said Rhode Island's retirement system -- which
controls investments totaling roughly $6.8 billion to cover public
employees' pension benefits -- was recently contacted by law firms
that specialize in securities fraud, but would likely follow
another state's lead.  Regardless of its role, the state system
would be eligible to recover its losses as would all other
participating funds, according to Mr. Dingley, who said he's aware
of potential involvement by California and Texas, among other
states.

Rhode Island's losses will be difficult to calculate.  The state's
exposure was limited to a $1.1-billion investment in a European
index, which included 1% BP stock.  Mr. Dingley notes that the
entire investment has grown 23.4% since last May, despite the BP
losses, which are expected to worsen.

Jonathan Williams, writing for Investments & Pensions Asia,
reports that BP could face class-action suits from pension funds
outside the U.S., according to a leading legal counsel.

Current securities regulations mean class-action suits cover any
investor buying stock, even from exchanges outside the US,
according to Jerry Silk, Esq., senior partner at Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann.  "We have been talking to investors
both from the UK and the US who are also considering making the
motion for a lead in the case," he said.


CERTAINTEED CORP: July Hearing Set on Settlement of Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Smathers at The Janesville Gazette reports that CertainTeed
Corporation is close to finalizing a class action settlement in
U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania regarding its defective
shingles.  CertainTeed still claims most of its shingles are
defect-free and that they're agreeing to the settlement to avoid
legal costs and inconvenience.

The court will decide in July whether to move forward with the
settlement.  If there are no further appeals from objectors, the
settlement would be approved in August.

If a class action settlement is approved in August, Wisconsin
residents who own defective CertainTeed shingles would be eligible
for compensation.  Eligible parties include those who owned a home
with CertainTeed shingles as of Dec. 15, 2009, and can prove the
shingles curled, cracked or blistered as a result of manufacturer
defects before the warranty expired.  The settlement only applies
to organic asphalt shingles, not fiberglass shingles.

Eligible parties seeking compensation must then fill out a claims
form.  They can fill out an abbreviated claims form if they were
offered or accepted a settlement from CertainTeed between Aug. 1,
2006, and the final class action settlement approval.  Otherwise,
they must fill out a standard form that requires a shingle sample
and proof of ownership.

Depending on the circumstances, each claimant has between 90 days
and 25 years to file their claim.  The compensation also varies
depending on ownership and warranty status.  Those who have
already been offered a refund or rebate directly from CertainTeed
should think twice before agreeing.  Those who agreed to such
reimbursement after Aug. 1, 2006, are entitled to only 20% of the
difference between the class action settlement and CertainTeed's
direct settlement.  Those who settled before that date are
entitled to no compensation.

Those eligible for reimbursement would be paid sums significantly
larger than the original rebates and refunds CertainTeed offered.

The Gazette relates that Janesville resident Carol Peerenboom --
after going through what she called a "byzantine claims process"
and registering a complaint with the Wisconsin Bureau of Consumer
Protection -- was offered by CertainTeed a rebate of $2 per 100
square feet of shingles for a total of $68 plus a prorated refund
of $882 based on the number of years left on the warranty.

"The major cost of roofing is in the labor, and so your offer in
no way reflects the financial reality of replacing a roof due to
no fault of my own nor of my contractor but due to the materials
of your manufacture, which proved to be defective," Ms. Peerenboom
wrote to CertainTeed in March.

The Gazette notes those seeking a refund have sometimes found
themselves stuck in the claims process for months.  CertainTeed
requested parties send photos of the shingles, close-ups of the
damage, shots of the entire building from front and back and
pictures of ventilation for the roof.  In addition, they must send
two damaged shingles in a special cardboard box, which requires a
diagram with specific measurements to assemble.

Raube Penn of Beloit submitted all the materials.  While
CertainTeed confirmed the shingles were damaged, his claim was
rejected.  The shingles were installed when the house was built in
1996.  But because the original homeowners did not notify
CertainTeed in writing that Penn purchased the house in 2002, his
25-year warranty was voided.

"We went through this Mickey Mouse business with CertainTeed with
that whole thing -- writing letters back and forth and back and
forth," Mr. Penn said. "It probably took about six to eight
months."

CertainTeed eventually offered Penn a rebate of $10 per 100 square
feet of replacement shingles, but that required Penn to first
reshingle his roof with new CertainTeed products.

It cost Mr. Penn about $8,500 to replace his roof.  His rebate was
$300.  "It was a merry-go-round," Mr. Penn said. "I wasn't happy
with CertainTeed, but I don't expect anything more."

For more information on the status and details of the settlement,
go to http://certainteedshinglesettlement.com/faq.cfm

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael McShane, Esq.
     AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
     221 Main Street, Suite 1460
     San Francisco, CA 94105

          - and -

     Charles LaDuca, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     507 C Street NE
     Washington, D.C. 20002

          - and -

     Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P
     Suite 2200, 100 Washington Avenue South
     Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401

CertainTeed Corporation is being defended by:

     Lawrence T. Hoyle, Jr., Esq.
     Hoyle, Fickler, Herschel & Mathes LLP
     Suite 1500, One South Broad Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19107


CORVEL CORP: Defends Lawsuit by Illinois Health Care Providers
--------------------------------------------------------------
CorVel Corp. continues to pursue all available legal remedies
including defending the putative class-action lawsuit filed by
Kathleen Roche, D.C.

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

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

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

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

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

No further updates were reported in the company's June 11, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010.

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


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Final OK of Settlement in Williams Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval of a settlement in the matter Scott M. Williams
v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 02-cv-2003 NAJ (JFS), remains
pending in the U.S. District Court (San Diego), according to the
company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 9, 2010.

The case is purportedly brought as class actions on behalf of
certain present and former Costco managers in California, in
which plaintiffs principally allege that they have not been
properly compensated for overtime work.

The settlement, according to the company, is immaterial to its
condensed consolidated financial statements.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Plaintiffs' Appeal of Summary Judgment Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the ruling of the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles granting summary judgment in favor
of Costco Wholesale Corp. in the suit styled Terry Head v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., Case No. BC-409805, remains pending, according to
the company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 9,
2010.

A case purportedly brought as a class action on behalf of certain
present and former Costco managers in California, in which
plaintiffs principally allege that they have not been properly
compensated for overtime work.  The suit is styled Greg Randall v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., filed in the Superior Court for the County
of Los Angeles, Case No. BC-296369.

On Feb. 21, 2008 the court tentatively granted in part and denied
in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  That order
was finalized by the court on May 13, 2008.

The parties in Randall have agreed on a partial settlement of the
action, resolving all claims except for the miscalculation claim,
requiring a payment of up to $16 million by the company, which was
substantially paid in the first quarter of 2010.

The miscalculation claim from the Randall case was refiled as a
separate action by stipulation and styled Terry Head v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., filed in the Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles, Case No. BC-409805.

On Oct. 2, 2009, the court granted the company's motion for
summary judgment, and that ruling has been appealed.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Denies Rule 23 Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Los Angeles) denied the plaintiff's bid for Rule 23 class
certification in the matter Jesse Drenckhahn v. Costco Wholesale
Corp.  The court however conditionally certified a Fair Labor
Standards Act collective action for notice purposes only,
according to Costco Wholesale Corp.'s June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 9, 2010.

The suit was filed on Dec. 26, 2007, and principally alleges
denial of overtime compensation.  The complaint alleges
misclassification of certain California managers.

On March 6, 2008, Costco filed a motion to dismiss.  On May 15,
2008, the court partially granted the motion, dismissing certain
claims and refusing to expand the statute of limitations for the
remaining claims.

An answer to the complaint was filed on May 27, 2008.

Plaintiff's Rule 23 class certification motion was denied, while a
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action was
conditionally certified for notice purposes only.

The suit is Jesse Drenckhahn v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No.
CV08-1408 FMC, (C.D. Calif.) (Nguyen, J.).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Alan Harris, Esq.
          David Zelenski, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          6424 Santa Monica Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
                  dzelenski@harrisandruble.com

Costco is represented by:

          David D. Kadue, Esq.
          Kenwood C. Youmans, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW
          2029 Century Park E., Ste. 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          E-mail: dkadue@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Timothy Michael Rusche, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 270-9662
          E-mail: trusche@seyfarth.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Defends "Hawk" Complaint in Washington
--------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. continues to defend a purported class
action styled Raven Hawk v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No.
09-242196-0-SEA, filed in the King County Superior Court.

A case purportedly brought as a class action on behalf of present
and former hourly employees in California, in which the plaintiff
principally alleges that the company's routine closing procedures
and security checks cause employees to incur delays that qualify
as uncompensated working time and that deny them statutorily
guaranteed meal periods and rest breaks.

The suit was filed on Nov. 9, 2009, in the State of Washington.

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

No further updates were reported in the company's June 10, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 9, 2010.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Pytelewski Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp continues to defend the complaint styled
Mary Pytelewski v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 37-2009-
00089654, pending in the Superior Court for the County of San
Diego.

The purported class action was filed on May 15, 2009, on behalf of
present and former hourly employees in California, claiming denial
of wages and false imprisonment during the post-closing jewelry
and till "pull," when security measures allegedly cause employees
to be locked in the warehouses.

No further updates were reported in the company's June 10, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 9, 2010.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Grants Summary Judgment vs. Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles granted summary
judgment against the plaintiff in the matter Anthony Castaneda v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. BC-399302, according to the
company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 9, 2010.

The case was purportedly brought as a class action on behalf of
present and former hourly employees in California, in which the
plaintiff principally alleges that the company's routine closing
procedures and security checks cause employees to incur delays
that qualify as uncompensated working time and that effectively
deny them statutorily guaranteed meal periods and rest breaks.

The complaint was filed on Oct. 2, 2008, and the company's motion
to dismiss was partially granted.

On Feb. 1, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification, and that ruling has been appealed.

The court granted summary judgment against the plaintiff on his
individual claim on April 19, 2010.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: FLSA Claim in "Ward" Conditionally Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Los Angeles) conditionally certified a Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action but for notice purposes only, in the matter
Carrie Ward v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. CV08-02013 FMC,
according to Costco Wholesale Corp.'s June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 9, 2010.

The putative class action, filed on Jan. 24, 2008, purportedly
brought on behalf of two groups of former California employees: an
"Unpaid Wage Class" and a "Wage Statement Class."

The "Unpaid Wage Class" alleges that the company improperly
deducts employee credit card balances from final paychecks, while
the "Wage Statement Class" alleges that final paychecks do not
contain the accurate and itemized information legally required for
wage statements

On May 29, 2008, the court granted in part a motion to dismiss,
dismissing with prejudice the wage-itemization claims.

On May 5, 2009, the Court denied the company's motion for summary
judgment.

Plaintiff's Rule 23 class certification motion was denied, while
an FLSA collective action was conditionally certified for notice
purposes only.

The parties are represented by the same lawyers appearing in
Drenckhahn v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 08-cv-01408 (C.D.
Calif.) (Nguyen, J.).

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


DELL INC: Final Approval of $40 Million Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Dell Inc. continues to await final approval from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, of a $40
million settlement resolving a securities suit, according to the
company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010.

Four putative securities class actions filed between Sept. 13,
2006, and Jan. 31, 2007, against Dell and certain of its current
and former officers were consolidated as In re Dell Securities
Litigation, and a lead plaintiff was appointed by the court.

The lead plaintiff asserted claims under sections 10(b), 20(a),
and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged
false and misleading disclosures or omissions regarding Dell's
financial statements, governmental investigations, internal
controls, known battery problems and business model, and based on
insiders' sales of Dell securities.  This action also included
Dell's independent registered public accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, as a defendant.

On Oct. 6, 2008, the court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims
with prejudice and without leave to amend.

On Nov. 3, 2008, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of Dell and
the officer defendants to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
appeal was fully briefed, and oral argument on the appeal was
heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on
Sept. 1, 2009.

On Nov. 20, 2009, the parties to the appeal entered into a written
settlement agreement whereby Dell would pay $40 million to the
proposed class and the plaintiff would dismiss the pending
litigation.

The settlement was preliminarily approved by the District Court on
Dec. 21, 2009.

The settlement was subject to certain conditions, including opt-
outs from the proposed class not exceeding a specified percentage
and final approval by the District Court.  During the first
quarter of Fiscal 2011, the original opt-out period in the notice
approved by the Court passed and the specified percentage was not
exceeded.

Accordingly, Dell accrued $40 million for this settlement during
the first quarter of Fiscal 2011.  The settlement still requires
final approval by the District Court.

The suit is In re Dell, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
06-cv-00726 (W.D. Tex.)(Sparks, J.)

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          James M. Hughes, Esq.
          Lauren S. Antonino, Esq.
          Motley Rice LLC
          P.O. Box 1792, 28 Bridgeside Blvd.
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
          Phone: (843) 216-9000
          Fax:   (843) 216-9290
          E-mail: jhughes@motleyrice.com
                  lantonino@motleyrice.com


EBAY INC: Court Enters Default Judgment on PayPal Suit
------------------------------------------------------
George Hunter and Doug Guthrie at The Detroit News report that a
federal court has entered a default judgment in a lawsuit against
eBay over the company's practice of forcing sellers to use PayPal.
The class-action lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and the right
for sellers to accept other forms of payment from buyers.  EBay
has required all sellers to use PayPal exclusively since 2008. It
purchased the Internet payment service in 2002.

Sellers bitterly complained about having to pay a 3% transaction
fee to PayPal in addition to eBay's fees for listings and
percentage of the final sale price.  The lawsuit contends that
eBay is violating anti-trust laws.

"When you sell something on eBay, you pay them a percentage; then
PayPal gets their cut," said Peter Macuga, Esq., the attorney for
six eBay sellers. "EBay won't even let sellers accept cash, checks
or any other method.

"What eBay is doing is the very reason the Sherman Anti-Trust Act
was passed."

The company was held in default in U.S. District Court in Detroit,
after failing to respond to the lawsuit.  Attorneys for eBay on
Friday filed a motion asking the court to set aside the default
judgment, and requested a 14-day extension to respond to the
lawsuit.

"EBay and PayPal did not willfully default," according to the
company's motion. "Rather, the parties were engaged in dialogue
and negotiations, and at no time had plaintiffs ever indicated
their intention to seek entries of default."

EBay's attorneys did not respond to efforts Tuesday seeking
comment.

Mr. Macuga filed the lawsuit April 12, and said he sent a
registered letter to eBay's California offices the following day.

"They had 30 days to answer," Mr. Macuga said. "On June 15, they
were defaulted by the court -- it was 62 days and they still
hadn't responded."

The class action suit could potentially cover tens of thousands of
customers and could result in the company paying out a
"substantial sum of money" to sellers, Mr. Macuga said.

EBay, a publicly held Delaware-based corporation, purchased PayPal
in 2002. Since then, according to the lawsuit, eBay and PayPal
have tried to "wipe out any competition."  For instance, when
Google Checkout announced in 2006 that it would charge 2% fees for
eBay transactions, as opposed to the 3% fee charged by PayPal,
eBay announced three days later that sellers were banned from
requesting payment from Google Checkout, Mr. Macuga said.

Registered users in the United States and the United Kingdom are
required to use PayPal.  But in Australia, the government stopped
eBay from making PayPal the exclusive method of payment.

EBay's first-quarter revenues totaled $2.2 billion, up 9% year
over year.

There is no timetable for the court to act on eBay's motion to set
aside the default judgment.

"It is not an easy matter to win a litigated antitrust case," said
Stephen Calkin, a Wayne State University Law School professor and
expert in antitrust law.

"Clearly these litigants are protesting against activity they are
saying is very unfair and unreasonable, but I don't know if a
default judgment will result in any real action against eBay."

Plaintiffs' counsel may be reached at:

     Peter W. Macuga, II, Esq.
     Macuga & Liddle, PC
     975 East Jefferson Avenue
     Detroit, MI 48207


ELDERS LIMITED: Shareholders Eye Class Suit; Taps Slater Firm
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Brindal, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that
shareholders of Elders have approached law firm Slater & Gordon
asking it to investigate a possible class action against the
agribusiness.  The shareholders are to cite poor disclosure and
big falls in Elders' share price.

Litigation funder Comprehensive Legal Funding LLC will fund the
investigation by Slater & Gordon, the law firm said in a
statement.

Shares in Elders have dropped 56% last week, Slater & Gordon
lawyer James Higgins, Esq., said.  Shareholders are tired of
Elders' poor governance and its poor history of disclosure, he
added.

Leonie Wood at The Age reports Elders told the market on the
morning of June 22 that it expected an after-tax full-year loss of
between $8 million and $14 million.  Since then, its shares have
more than halved.  The stock closed on June 25 at 36.5›, down
45.5› for the week.

"Shareholders are understandably angry and have approached us
about a shareholder class action," Mr. Higgins said. "We will
begin the investigation immediately."


GENEREX BIOTECHNOLOGY: Faces "Solis" Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Generex Biotechnology Corporation faces a class action complaint
filed in the Riverside County Superior Court (Riverside,
California), according to the company's June 11, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2010.

On May 11, 2010, plaintiff Colleen Solis filed a class action
complaint against the company and unidentified and unknown "Doe"
defendants.

Plaintiff is seeking to enjoin the company from alleged misleading
advertising about CraveNX(TM) and to obtain a refund of the
purchase price she paid and restitution for the purported class.
Plaintiff also seeks certification of a class of California
consumers who purchased CraveNx(TM) in the past four years.

The company intends to file an answer to the complaint.

Generex Biotechnology Corporation -- http://www.generex.com/-- is
engaged in the research, development and commercialization of drug
delivery systems and technologies.  Generex has developed a
proprietary platform technology for the delivery of drugs into the
human body through the oral cavity (with no deposit in the lungs).
The company's proprietary liquid formulations allow drugs
typically administered by injection to be absorbed into the body
by the lining of the inner mouth using the Company's proprietary
RapidMist(TM) device.  The company's flagship product, oral
insulin (Generex Oral-lyn(TM)), which has been approved in India,
Lebanon, Algeria, and Ecuador for the treatment of subjects with
Type-1 and Type-2 diabetes, is in Phase III clinical trials at
several sites around the world and has been approved for use in
the USFDA's expanded access Treatment Investigational New Drug
program.  Antigen Express, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Generex.  The core platform technologies of Antigen Express
comprise immunotherapeutics for the treatment of malignant,
infectious, allergic, and autoimmune diseases.


HAWAII: NGO Sues to Reclaim Management of Heeia State Park
----------------------------------------------------------
The Star-Adviser in Honolulu, Hawaii, reports that The Friends of
Heeia State Park, a nonprofit group, filed a class-action lawsuit
on June 22, 2010, against the new vendor, the state, and
Department of Land and Natural Resources Director Laura Thielen.
The suit claims the state is in violation of a number of federal
laws, including the National Historic Preservation Act, Clean
Water Act and Endangered Species Act, by letting another vendor
manage the Windward Oahu park.

The group's lawyer, Anthony Locricchio, Esq., said he has not
presented the lawsuit to the state or the current vendor because
their lawyers refused to accept it.  He planned to serve the
papers in time for a temporary restraining order hearing Wednesday
afternoon.

The group filed a lawsuit in state court in April to block the
state from awarding a lease to the 18-acre park to Kamaaina Kids,
one of the largest childcare organizations in the state.  Friends
said in the suit that its lease is valid until Sept. 1.

A state judge issued a temporary restraining order April 26 and
scheduled a hearing for a preliminary injunction for May 10.

On the day of the hearing, the group withdrew its lawsuit,
clearing the way for the state to turn over the park's management
to Kamaaina Kids.

Friends of Heeia State Park has offered cultural and environmental
programs at the park for more than 20 years.  When the state
requested bids for a new vendor, the group submitted a bid but the
state awarded the lease to Kamaaina Kids.


ILLINOIS SCHOOL OF HEALTH: Faces Class Suit on Nursing Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Dizikes at The Chicago Tribune reports that Denise Parnell
and three other students have filed a proposed class-action
lawsuit against the Illinois School of Health Careers saying it
misrepresented its Patient Care Technician program.

Ms. Parnell enrolled in the Illinois School of Health Careers last
summer to become a certified nursing assistant.  But in June, just
as Ms. Parnell was finishing the eight-month-long program at the
for-profit school, she learned her hard work and thousands of
dollars in federal loans had been wasted.  The school's program
wasn't approved by the Illinois Department of Public Health, and
Ms. Parnell was no closer to qualifying for a nursing job than
when she started.

In a June 2 memo, the Chicago-based Illinois School of Health
Careers informed its students that graduates of the Patient Care
Technician program would not be able to take the state's certified
nursing assistant exam because the program lacked IDPH's approval.

"I was actually sick when I heard," said Ms. Parnell, who said she
still owes more than $13,000, including an $8,546 federal loan. "I
wasted a year of my time and I still have to pay back all those
loans."

Hundreds have enrolled in the program since June 2009.

The Illinois State Board of Education has launched an
investigation into what the school promised enrollees.  "We are
investigating complaints regarding the PCT program and the manner
in which it is being promoted by the school," said Jeff Aranowski,
who supervises school and instructor approval for the Illinois
State Board of Education.

When Ms. Parnell enrolled in Illinois School of Health Careers,
she and other students were given materials from the school that
explicitly stated that all graduates of the Patient Care
Technician program would be "immediately qualified to take the
state board exams" to become a "certified nursing assistant."

But in a June 2 letter to students and faculty from David Mohr,
president of the school's parent company ForeFront Education, the
school admitted it made an error, and attributed it to
"unauthorized and wrong" information disseminated by some of its
staff.

"We apologize for this mistake," Mr. Mohr wrote. "Our commitment
to you is not just to offer an apology, but to ensure that you
have an opportunity to sit for the CNA exam."

The letter then detailed the school's offer to pay for students to
attend an approved certified nursing assistant program in the
Chicago area, plus another $1,500 to defray any unexpected costs.
Still, the Illinois School of Health Careers maintained in
interviews that its patient care technician program was not
created to be a certified nursing assistant program.

"It's (an) eight-month program that's designed to get a student an
entry-level position," Mr. Mohr said. "The most likely place where
they're going to work when they graduate is in a nursing home or
some kind of a facility where they're going to be caring for
people that can't take care of themselves."

However, IDPH does not recognize patient care technicians "as
being qualified to work or to provide direct care and long-term
care for people in nursing homes and hospitals," spokeswoman Kelly
Jakubek said.

"The patient care technician (without a certified nursing
credential) is something we don't approve and we don't support,"
Ms. Jakubek said.  Organizations could still hire patient care
technicians to do other duties, but they shouldn't be providing
direct care to patients or residents, she said.

The Illinois School of Health Careers applied to the Illinois
Department of Health to be approved as a certified nursing
assistant program in January -- about six months after it began
enrolling students.  Mr. Mohr said the school decided to apply for
certification at the insistence of students and faculty, who
thought it was an "important credential for our graduates to get."

Ms. Parnell, who filed a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court this
month along with several other students, said the problem went
beyond a simple miscommunication to the entire framework of the
program.  In its 2009 academic catalog, the Illinois School of
Health Careers stated that students enrolled in the Patient Care
Technician program would be trained to perform basic patient
skills required of a certified nursing assistant, and would be
"qualified to work as a . . . nursing assistant."

"It wasn't a minor slip up at all," said Porchia Thurmond, 20,
another plaintiff who said she quit after she was told she
wouldn't be able to become a certified nursing assistant.  "I
thought when I read the catalog that I was going to be a CNA and
be able to give patients direct care."

The Illinois State Board of Education approved the school's
patient care technician program in September 2007, though the
school did not begin enrolling students until June 2009.  The
school has been enrolling about 30 students every month since
then, Mr. Mohr said.

It's the school's responsibility to also get IDPH approval of its
program, said Mr. Aranowski of the Illinois State Board of
Education.  Mr. Aranowski acknowledged, however, that this two-
step approval can leave room for institutions to slip through the
cracks.

Consumer and students advocates are less diplomatic.

"We have created a system in which we supposedly have multiple
overseers when it turns out nobody is on the job," said Barmak
Nassirian of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and
Admissions Officers, a Washington D.C.-based organization that
represents hundreds of universities, most of them traditional not-
for-profit collegiate institutions. "(And) some of these schools
. . . can waste your time and money."

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are seeking at least $5 million from
the school for tuition, expenses and lost time, said plaintiff's
attorney Thomas Zimmerman, Esq., who estimates that at least 350
students were affected.

If the State Board of Education's investigation determines
wrongdoing, it could enforce sanctions that include sending a
warning letter to the school, suspending the Patient Care
Technician program, putting the school on probationary status, or
moving to revoke the school's certification, Mr. Aranowski said.

But Mr. Mohr said the school has already taken steps to correct
the problem.  Mr. Mohr said that school personnel have been
directed to make it clear to incoming students that the program
has not been approved as a certified nursing assistant program.

"The message is going out to everybody. . . . Our focus is on
successfully resolving the situation and helping our students be
successful in their careers," Mr. Mohr said.

Asked in a follow-up interview whether the school would change its
course and class descriptions, Mr. Mohr responded in an e-mail
that the catalogue is accurate.

"The catalogue accurately describes our PCT program," Mr. Mohr
wrote. "In light of pending litigation, we have no further
comment."

The Career College Association, which represents about 1,600 for-
profit colleges, has lobbied against increased regulation, and
attributes some of the bad press for-profits have been getting to
growing pains of an emerging industry and "a few bad apples." The
responsibility ultimately comes down to the school and the
student, said Bob Cohen, the association's spokesman.


JEWISH HOSPITAL: Sued for Breach of Patient Confidentiality
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Jewish Hospital & St. Mary's
Healthcare lost a flash drive containing personal information of
24,600 patients of Our Lady of Peace, "a mental health facility,"
a class action claims in Jefferson County Court, Louisville.

A copy of the Complaint in McIntyre v. Jewish Hospital & St.
Mary's Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 10CV04313 (Ky. Cir. Ct.,
Jefferson Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/23/MedRecords.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth J. Henry, Esq.
          HENRY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          331 Townepark Circle, Suite 200
          Louisville, KY 40243
          Telephone: 502-245-9100


KITEC FITTING: Deadline to File Proofs of Claim on July 31
----------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in Clark County, Nevada, has entered an Order
establishing a Claims Bar Deadline of July 31, 2010, by which all
owners of Clark County homes that contain KITEC(R) plumbing
systems that have not already received written notice of the Class
Action must file a Proof of Claim in order to be included in the
In Re Kitec Fitting Litigation Class Action, Case No. A493302.
The Court has set a deadline of July 31, 2010.

Additional information on the Kitec Fitting Litigation Class
Action is available at no charge at:

           http://www.ktnv.com/Global/link.asp?L=446526

The Class is represented by:

     J. Randall Jones, Esq.
     William L. Coulthard, Esq.
     KEMP, JONES & COULTHARD, LLP
     3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
     Seventeenth Floor
     Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
     Telephone: (702) 341-8585

          - and -

     Francis Lynch, Esq.
     Charles Dee Hopper, Esq.
     Sergio Salzano, Esq.
     LYNCH, HOPPER & SALZANO, LLP
     231 South Third Street, Suite 130
     Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

KTNV-TV, Channel 13 Action News reports that four years after more
than 30,000 homeowners found out they had faulty pipe fittings,
they've won $90 million in a class action lawsuit.  But many have
e-mailed Action News asking to investigate, where the money is.

Action News investigated and found out all of the companies
involved in the class action lawsuit settled except for two
plumbing companies that went to trial and lost.  One of the
attorneys in the class action says the owners wanted to settle,
but their insurance company did not.

Bill Coulthard, Esq., at Kemp, Jones & Coulthard says, "Bottom
line is their insurance, Fire and Marine has delayed, delayed,
delayed at every step of the way, every step of these proceedings.
They don't want to pay, and they are continuing to fight and
challenge this at every step of the way, and those appeals are
tying up these funds and preventing thousands of homeowners from
getting a re plumb."  Mr. Coulthard says fighting the appeal could
take a year.


KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: South Kendall & Keys Gate Willing to Settle
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nirvi Shah, writing for McClatchy Newspapers, reports that two
companies in a class-action case over defective Chinese drywall in
Homestead, Fla., houses are willing to pay $6 million to settle
the case.  South Kendall Construction and an affiliate, Palm Isles
Holdings, will pay $4 million, and Keys Gate Realty will pay $2.6
million to homeowners if the offer is approved in court.

Jason and Melissa Harrell, who bought a two-story house in a
Homestead neighborhood built by South Kendall in 2008, sued last
year in Miami-Dade Circuit Court after they found imported drywall
was the source of the smell in their home and the cause of
appliances failing repeatedly. Their case was granted class-action
status last month.

"The settlements are fair and reasonable," said the Harrells'
attorney, Victor Diaz, Esq.  But the couple and other parties in
the class aren't yet whole.  "They do not fully compensate the
plaintiffs for their injuries."

Separately, Mr. Diaz will pursue a suit against Banner Supply,
which provided the drywall used in the Harrells' home, drywall
manufacturer Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin, importer La Suprema and
exporter Rothchilt International.

Last week, a Miami-Dade jury found those parties liable for $2.5
million in damages and expenses for a Coconut Grove couple whose
home was ruined by drywall emissions.  Notices to the 152 families
eligible to join the Harrells' class-action suit -- residents of
Palm Isles, Arbor Park and Augusta Greens -- were expected to be
mailed Thursday.

The agreement in the Harrells' case would be the second settlement
reached over Chinese drywall recently.  Drywall manufacturer Knauf
Plasterboard Tianjin has settled with two Louisiana homeowners
whose cases were set for trial last week in federal court in
Louisiana.

Paul and Celeste Clement and John Campbell own property in
Louisiana that contain KPT drywall.  The settlement calls for KPT
to hire a contractor to remove drywall and repair the plaintiffs'
homes in select areas.  The repair costs will be negotiated with
the contractor, so the settlement isn't for a specific amount.
Mr. Campbell and the Clements will also get small cash payments
for relocation expenses, lost rental income -- Mr. Campbell's
property is a duplex -- and attorneys fees.

"This settlement proves that KPT is willing to stand by its
product, work broadly with those impacted by its drywall and
settle on reasonable repairs," KPT attorney Steve Glickstein,
Esq., said.

Mr. Diaz said he thinks the settlements represent a new phase in
Chinese drywall litigation -- which includes thousands of lawsuits
from homeowners all over the country.  "I hope other defendants
will realize it's much better to settle than to go in front of a
jury," he said. "As the first jury verdict revealed, the facts
really anger people."

The Harrells are represented in the case by:

     Victor M. Diaz Jr., Esq.
     PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
     25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
     Miami, FL 33130
     Telephone: (305) 358-2800
     E-mail: VDIAZ@PODHURST.com


LAWN MOWER: Wisconsin Court Takes Settlement Under Advisement
-------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

       If You Purchased a Lawn Mower with a Gas Engine up to
       30 Horsepower from January 1, 1994 to April 12, 2010,

     You Could Receive Benefits from Class Action Settlements.

    Included Riding and Walk-Behind Lawn Mowers (Partial List):
        Yard-Man, Cub Cadet, Honda, Bolens, Exmark, Deere,
     Sabre, Scotts, Toro, Yard Machines, Craftsman, Troy Bilt,
       Husqvarna, Poulan, Poulan PRO, Lawn-Boy, Weed Eater,
    White Outdoor, Snapper, Simplicity, Brute, Murray, and other
        brands that have engines made by Briggs & Stratton,
               Tecumseh, Kawasaki, Honda or Kohler.

A federal Court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.

     *  Multiple Settlements have been reached in a class action
lawsuit involving gasoline-powered lawn mowers. The lawsuit claims
that the Defendants misrepresented and overstated the horsepower
of their lawn mowers and lawn mower engines. The Defendants deny
these claims and they deny they did anything wrong. All of the
parties have agreed to settle.

     *  The lawsuit does not concern the safety of these lawn
mowers.

     *  Those included may get cash payments and, on certain
engines, extended warranty benefits. Certain Defendants have
also agreed to a new "Certified Power Rating" standard.  You must
file a claim to get a payment or extend your warranty.  All
information necessary to complete the Claim Form should be
physically located on your lawn mower -- no purchase documents are
necessary.

     *  Your legal rights are affected, whether you act or don't
act. Read this notice carefully.

The case is called In re Lawn Mower Engine Horsepower Marketing
and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1999, 2:08-md-01999.

The defendants are American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda); MTD
Products Inc (MTD); Sears, Roebuck and Co., Sears Holdings
Corporation and Kmart Holding Corporation (collectively Sears);
Deere & Company (Deere); Tecumseh Products Company (Tecumseh);
TecumsehPower Company (TecumsehPower); Platinum Equity, LLC
(Platinum Equity); Briggs & Stratton Corporation (Briggs &
Stratton); Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA (Kawasaki); Kawasaki Heavy
Industries, Ltd., Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing Corp., USA, The
Toro Company (Toro); Husqvarna Outdoor Products Inc. (now known as
Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products, N.A., Inc.) (Husqvarna) and
its predecessor Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (Electrolux); and
Kohler Co. (Kohler).

There are five Settlements being presented to the Court for
approval:

     *  MTD Settlement: MTD settled for their cooperation but is
paying no money into the Settlement Fund. MTD will conform
its power testing practices to the new Certified Power Rating
standard.

     *  Honda Settlement: Honda will pay $7.5 million into the
Settlement Fund.

     *  Kohler Settlement: Kohler will pay $3.5 million into the
Settlement Fund. Kohler will also conform its power testing
practices to the new Certified Power Rating standard. In addition,
Kohler will provide a one-year extended engine
warranty to all Class Members with Kohler engines in their lawn
mowers.

     *  Kawasaki Settlement: Kawasaki will pay $3 million into the
Settlement Fund. Kawasaki will also conform its power testing
practices to the new Certified Power Rating standard. In addition,
Kawasaki will provide a one-year extended engine
warranty to all Class Members who currently own a lawn mower with
a Kawasaki engine.

     *  Sears, Deere, Tecumseh, Briggs & Stratton, Toro,
Electrolux, and Husqvarna Settlement: These Defendants will pay
$51 million into the Settlement Fund. These Defendants will also
conform their power testing practices to the new Certified Power
Rating standard. In addition, Briggs & Stratton, Toro or Tecumseh
will provide a one-year extended engine warranty to Class Members
who currently own a lawn mower with an engine manufactured and
originally warranted by Briggs & Stratton, Toro, Tecumseh, or
TecumsehPower.

The combined Settlements are valued at $65 million for Cash
Benefits.

Class Members could receive benefits in one or more of the
following ways:

     *  Cash Benefits: If you are a Class Member and you submit a
valid and timely claim, you could receive:

          -- Up to $35.00 for each walk-behind lawn mower you
purchased.

         -- Up to $75.00 for each riding lawn mower you purchased.

If claims exceed the amount available for Cash Benefits, the cash
payments will be reduced on a proportional basis so that all valid
claims can be paid. If you exclude yourself from one or more of
the Settlements (except for the MTD Settlement), the amount of
your Cash Benefit will be less.

     *  Warranty Benefits: If you are a Class Member and you
submit a valid and timely claim, you will receive a one-year
extended engine warranty if you own a lawn mower containing an
engine manufactured and originally warranted by Briggs & Stratton,
Toro, Tecumseh, TecumsehPower, Kawasaki, or Kohler.

          -- To qualify, your Briggs & Stratton, Toro, Tecumseh,
TecumsehPower, Kawasaki, or Kohler manufactured engine must have
had a manufacturer's warranty at the time of purchase.

     *  Certified Power Rating Benefits: MTD, Kawasaki, Kohler,
Sears, Deere, Tecumseh, Briggs & Stratton, Toro, Electrolux, and
Husqvarna have agreed to a new uniform standard for testing lawn
mower engine power and have also agreed to make these testing
results public.

Class Members have until August 31, 2010 to submit a Claim Form
for Cash Benefits.  Class Members have up to one year after the
date that the Court has approved the Settlements and all appeals
are over to make a claim for and to obtain the Warranty Benefit;
however, the one-year extended warranty itself expires one year
after the Court has approved the Settlement and all appeals are
over. Upon submission of a claim, an eligible Class Member will
receive a certificate for the Warranty Benefit.

The Court conducted the Final Approval Hearing on June 22, 2010.
The Court took the Settlements and the request for attorneys' fees
and expenses under advisement and will issue a ruling in the near
future.

A copy of the notice is available at http://is.gd/d51Bg

Updates are available at https://lawnmowerclass.com/

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
     HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
     310 Clifton Avenue
     Minneapolis, MN 55403
     Telephone: (612) 338-4605
     E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com

          - and -

     Brian M. Sund, Esq.
     MORRISON FENSKE & SUND, P.A.
     5125 County Road 101, Suite 202
     Minnetonka, MN 55345
     Telephone: (952) 277-0113
     E-mail: bsund@morrisonfenske.com


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Defends Securities Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc., defends a lawsuit styled Material Yard
Workers Local 1175 Benefit Funds, et al. v. The Men's Wearhouse,
Inc., Case No. 4:09-cv-03265.

On Oct. 8, 2009, the company was named in a federal securities
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The class period alleged in the complaint runs from March 7, 2007
to Jan. 9, 2008.  The primary allegations are that the company
issued false and misleading press releases regarding its guidance
for fiscal year 2007 on various occasions during the alleged class
period.  The complaint seeks damages based on the decline in the
company's stock price following the announcement of lowered
guidance on Oct. 10, 2007, Nov. 28, 2007, and Jan. 9, 2008.

The case is in its early stages and discovery has not begun.

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

The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. -- http://www.menswearhouse.com/-- is a
specialty retailer of men's suits and a provider of tuxedo rental
product in the United States and Canada.  At Jan. 30, 2010, the
company operated 1,259 retail stores, with 1,142 stores in the
United States and 117 stores in Canada.  Its United States retail
stores are operated under the brand names of Men's Wearhouse (581
stores), Men's Wearhouse and Tux (454 stores) and K&G (107 stores)
in 47 states and the District of Columbia.  Its Canadian stores
are operated under the brand name of Moores Clothing for Men in 10
provinces.  It also operates a corporate apparel and uniform
program (operated as Twin Hill) and, in the Houston, Texas area, a
retail dry cleaning and laundry business (operated as MW
Cleaners).  At Jan. 30, 2010, it operated 581 Men's Wearhouse
apparel stores in 47 states and the District of Columbia.  These
stores are referred to as Men's Wearhouse stores or traditional
stores.


NATHAN'S FAMOUS: Motion to Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, Essex County
granted Nathan's Famous, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action
complaint alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
remains pending, according to the company's June 11, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended March 28, 2010.

On July 31, 2009, the company was served with a class action
complaint filed in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey,
Essex County.

In addition to Nathan's Famous, Inc., the Complaint names as
defendants Kraft Foods, Sara Lee Corporation, ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
and Marathon Enterprises, Inc.

The named class plaintiffs purport to represent consumers who have
purchased processed meat products that were distributed and sold
in New Jersey from July 22, 2003, through July 22, 2009.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Defendants
violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (N.J.S.A. 56:8-2) by
omitting material information about their respective processed
meat products for the purpose of inducing consumers to purchase
the products.

The Complaint seeks injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs
incurred in bringing the lawsuit.

The named plaintiffs are further seeking combined damages in the
amount of $900.  If a violation of the Act is found to have
occurred, named plaintiffs are entitled to trebled damages in the
combined amount of $2,700.00.

The company, along with all of the defendants, made a motion to
dismiss this complaint on Oct. 9, 2009 and such motion was
granted.

Nathan's Famous, Inc. -- http://www.nathansfamous.com/-- is
engaged primarily in the marketing of the Nathan's Famous brand
and the sale of products bearing the Nathan's Famous trademarks
through several different channels of distribution.  It is
engaged in the operation and franchising of quick service
restaurant units featuring Nathan's Famous Beef Hot Dogs,
crinkle-cut, French-fried potatoes, and a variety of other menu
offerings.  In addition to its company owned and franchised
traditional restaurant operations, Nathan's introduced its Branded
Menu Program.  The company and certain authorized third
parties also sell Nathan's Famous Beef Hot Dogs to foodservice
operators outside of the realm of a traditional franchise
relationship.  As of March 29, 2009, its Nathan's Famous
restaurant system consisted of 249 franchised or licensed units
and five company-owned units (including one seasonal unit) located
in 25 states and four countries.


NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Sup. Ct. Says Aussie Investors Can't Sue in NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters' Dominique Vidalon reports that the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled foreign investors who bought shares of National Australia
Bank on an overseas stock exchange cannot sue in a New York court
over large writedowns tied to the bank's onetime U.S. mortgage
unit.  The justices upheld a ruling by a U.S. appeals court that
dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that American courts did not
have jurisdiction.

The Financial Times' Stephanie Kirchgaessner and Ben Hall report
that the Supreme Court's ruling on Thursday struck a blow against
shareholders outside the U.S. seeking big legal pay-outs when it
ruled to limit foreigners' rights to use the American legal system
to sue corporations.  The ruling to dismiss the lawsuit against
NAB by Australian investors will have broad ramifications for a
number of other pending multi-million dollar cases.  These include
a shareholder suit against Paris-based Vivendi, the entertainment
and telecoms group.  It will also be likely to force non-U.S.
shareholders to think twice before attempting to use U.S. courts
to make claims against companies if they did not buy their shares
there.

The NAB investors had argued before the Supreme Court that the
case should be heard in the U.S. because it centered on
allegations of fraud by a Florida-based NAB subsidiary called
HomeSide Lending, a mortgage servicer.  NAB bought the Florida
group for $1.22 billion in 1998 but was forced to take writedowns
of $2.2 billion a few years later.  The subsidiary was later sold
to Washington Mutual, which in 2008 was seized and sold by the
U.S. government to JPMorgan.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority's decision that the
NAB's shareholders' argument, that deception at the heart of the
writedowns had occurred in Florida, was not sufficiently relevant
to give the matter U.S. jurisdiction.  Instead, the place where
the purchase and sale of stock originated -- in this case,
Australia -- was paramount.

Lawyers for Vivendi regarded the judgment as a "huge victory", a
person familiar with the matter said.  Vivendi was found liable by
a jury in a U.S. court in January of misleading investors about
its financial health from 2000-2002.  The case is believed to be
the largest class action law suit related to securities
transactions ever heard in a US court, involving 1 million
plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court ruling in NAB could disqualify two-thirds of the
plaintiffs in the Vivendi case, greatly reducing potential
liabilities.  Class action cases are not allowed in French law and
French companies have become increasingly alarmed at the rise in
litigation attempts by French shareholders joining US class action
cases.

The Australian, British and French governments had filed a brief
in the case arguing against jurisdiction to help protect their
companies from US litigators.  They argued that shareholders who
bought securities in a foreign jurisdiction should be covered by
the laws of that jurisdiction and not the U.S. French companies
including Vivendi, EADS, Lagardere and Alstom also filed briefs in
the NAB case.

"It doesn't mean that foreigners can't use the US courts if, for
example, they bought securities on an exchange in the United
States. They can sue the same way that an American investor
would," said Doug Hallward-Driemeier, Esq., a partner at Ropes and
Gray.

"What it means is that a foreign company whose stocks are sold on
a foreign exchange should feel confident that they can buy a US
subsidiary without all their sales becoming subject to lawsuits in
the U.S. under US disclosure rules."

A copy of the Supreme Court's decision is available at:

                        http://is.gd/d4VdE


NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY: Class Action Costs May Reach $1 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Moore at The Daily Item in Sunbury, Pennsylvania, reports
that as a class-action lawsuit regarding conditions at
Northumberland County Prison heads toward a settlement,
Commissioner Vinny Clausi publicly complained about how the
litigation is driving up costs.

"We got hit from the civil lawsuit, and we're running a deficit at
the prison," said Mr. Clausi, a Democrat.  He estimated the county
will pay between $800,000 to $1 million for additional medical
expenses and attorney fees as a result of the lawsuit.

The Lewisburg Prison Project sued the county, former warden Ralph
Reish and the prison board on behalf of 12 current or former
inmates, alleging medieval conditions at the jail and practices
that violated constitutional rights.  Several issues have been
addressed, including improvements in medical services, and it
appears the two sides are moving toward a settlement.

But Mr. Clausi is upset that it comes at a price and could involve
the county paying for the plaintiff's attorney fees.  "We didn't
create this mess," he said, placing a large part of the blame on
Reish. "I think the Lewisburg Prison Project filed the suit
because he wasn't taking care of the prison."

Board Chairman Frank Sawicki added the issue would be addressed.

The board met in executive session with its attorney to discuss
the pending lawsuit.  The meeting lasted 20 minutes, and no action
was taken.


NOVA SCOTIA: Govt's Lawyer says Pollution Class Too Large
---------------------------------------------------------
Nancy King, writing for Cape Breton Post, reports that the group
that would be represented in a class-action lawsuit regarding
contamination associated with the operation of the Sydney steel
plant and coke ovens is too large, a lawyer for the federal
government argued Tuesday.

Michael Donovan, Esq., put forward the argument during the second
day of a hearing seeking to certify the action brought by Sydney
residents and property owners against Ottawa and the province.
The hearing is being held in Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Halifax
but is being broadcast over the Internet.

The class proposed by the plaintiffs -- the boundaries would
include anyone with at least three years of exposure within a
5.6-kilometre radio of Victoria Road and Laurier Street -- could
be as large as 50,000 people.

"In our view, the plaintiff's claim is misconceived and
structurally unsound," Mr. Donovan said, adding the courts have
been almost unanimous in rejecting these sorts of claims.

If approved by Justice John Murphy, it would be the first
environmental class-action suit in Nova Scotia.  There are four
representative claimants.  About 400 claimants have come forward
so far.

While the plaintiff claims emissions from the steel plant and coke
ovens posed health risks for Sydney residents, Mr. Donovan said
they haven't presented any medical opinions that the claimants are
suffering from illnesses caused by exposure to emissions.  If the
claim on behalf of residents is not based on personal injury then
it's difficult to see what the claim of the residential class is,
Mr. Donovan, noting simply increasing the risk of injury without
causing any actual harm doesn't mean there's liability.  The fact
that their exposure to emissions would have varied widely is also
a key issue with the residential class, he added.

"By no means are they all affected the same way," Mr. Donovan
said.  The requirement to have lived near the sites for at least
three years to be part of the residential class appeared to have
been arbitrarily chosen, he said.

Mr. Donovan said there are a number of different groups of people
represented in the class don't have any interest in each other's
claims.  Mr. Murphy replied that there can be sub-classes, but it
has to be manageable.

The property owner group is seeking remediation of soil, but
Donovan said they must prove there's been an unreasonable
interference with the enjoyment of the property.  He also said
establishing that nuisance has to be done on a property-by-
property basis.

Mr. Donovan said there is a question about soil residue, noting
that for decades before government took the properties over, they
were run by private operators, making the source of the
contaminants unclear.  There are other timing factors, such as the
introduction of the electric arc furnace, which resulted in lower
emissions, Mr. Donovan said.

That steel plant workers whose actions contributed to the
emissions would be part of the class could create a conflict, he
added.  Common issues among the class are overwhelmed by
individual issues, he argued.

Mr. Donovan rejected the plaintiff's position that the only way
the claims will make their way before the courts is through the
class action.  "It's a matter of speculation to say that these
claims could not be economically advanced, if there are claims,"
Mr. Donovan said.


PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Fishermen Sue for Anti-Competitive Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Seattle Times reports that Pacific Seafood Group is the target of
a class-action lawsuit alleging illegal anticompetitive efforts to
fix prices paid to fishermen, as well as other "fraudulent
schemes" and "miscellaneous dirty tricks."  The lawsuit was filed
Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Portland by Oregon fishermen
Lloyd Whaley and his son, Todd Whaley.  It seeks class-action
representation of more than 3,000 fishermen and vessel owners who
delivered crab, shrimp, whiting and other seafood to West Coast
ports since June 21, 2006.

The lawsuit alleges Pacific Seafood's competitors who deviated
from prices set by the company have received expletive-filled
messages.  Those messages allegedly came from Frank Dulcich, the
company's owner, and threatened "aggressive retaliation," the suit
claims.

The lawsuit also alleges Pacific Seafood bought out a series of
processor competitors, some of which it simply shut down, and has
sat on empty or unused parcels of waterfront industrial land in
order to lock out potential competition.  It has assembled its own
commercial-fishing fleet that competes with independent fishermen,
and has lent money to other skippers, sometimes requiring that
they sell all the seafood they catch to Pacific, the suit says.

Jeff Manning at The Oregonian reports that the lawsuit seeks to
break up Pacific Seafood into smaller parts as well as at least
$394 million in damages.  The damages would be divvied up among
commercial fisherman and their lawyers.

Karina Brown at Courthouse News Service reports that the Whaleys
seek an injunction for violations of the Sherman Act, and treble
damages they estimate at $394 million to $520 million.

According to Seattle Times, Craig Urness, a spokesman for Pacific
Seafood, said the lawsuit was without merit and "full of lies and
misrepresentation."  "We are going to defend this very
vigorously," Mr. Urness said.

Pacific Seafood's acquisitions in Washington include Pacific Pride
Seafood in Mukilteo in 1990, Washington Crab Producers in Westport
in 1993 and Starfish in Seattle in 2003, according to the lawsuit.

Pacific Seafood, based in suburban Portland, owns and operates 18
processing plants or landing stations in West Coast communities
and operates the only processing plants in seven communities,
according to the lawsuit.

The Whaleys allege Pacific Seafood now controls between 50% and
75% of the market in Pacific whiting, groundfish, Dungeness crab
and Pacific coldwater shrimp.  The company is the largest seafood
company in the country, with revenue of about $1 billion,
according to Seafood Business, a trade magazine.  Pacific Seafood
employs 1,500 to 2,000 employees, 600 of them in Oregon.

A copy of the Complaint in Whaley, et al. v. Pacific Seafood
Group, et al., Case No. 10-cv-03057 (D. Or.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/24/FishAntitrust.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael E. Haglund, Esq.
          Michael K. Kelley, Esq.
          Shay S. Scott, Esq.
          HAGLUND KELLEY HORNGREN JONES & WILDER LLP
          200 SW Market St., Suite 1777
          Portland, OR 97201
          Telephone: 503-225-0777
          E-mail: mhaglund@hk-law.com
                  mkelley@hk-law.com
                  sscott@hk-law.com


PHILIP MORRIS: Mass. Court Certifies Class Suit for CT Scan Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Boston Globe's Jonathan Saltzman reports that a federal judge
certified a class-action lawsuit on June 24 that demands Philip
Morris USA Inc. pay for chest scans to diagnose whether heavy
Marlboro smokers have early signs of lung cancer, a ruling that a
lawyer for the plaintiffs called the first of its kind in the
country.

Almost two years after lawyers for two named plaintiffs sought
class certification, U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Gertner in
Massachusetts granted the request and said she would let the case
to go to trial on claims that the cigarette manufacturer designed
a product that delivered excessive levels of carcinogens.
Certifying the class-action suit means that the judge has opened
up the legal action to other plaintiffs with similar
circumstances.

"Going forward, plaintiffs still face a substantial hurdle of
proving liability," Judge Gertner wrote in the 56-page order.
"But based on the record before me, plaintiffs have demonstrated
that they are able to do so as a class."

Her ruling allows thousands of other Massachusetts smokers to join
the suit, which covers people 50 or older who have smoked at least
one pack of Marlboro cigarettes a day for at least 20 years.  If a
jury sides with the smokers, Philip Morris could be required to
pay for each patient's low-dose computed tomography scan, which
can detect early-stage lunch cancer.

The tests typically cost $400 to $500 a year, but many health
plans do not cover them, according to Christopher Weld Jr., Esq.,
in Boston, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs.

Lawyers for Philip Morris did not immediately respond to requests
for comment.

Mr. Weld said there is a similar suit pending in New York,
however, this is the first one in the country that he knows of
that has been certified as class action.  "It's a terrific
decision for our class," Mr. Weld said. "It allows the case to go
forward on a group basis, which is critical. And in many respects,
she has accepted our understanding or interpretation of applicable
law that will be favorable to the class."

The case differs from other tobacco lawsuits because the
plaintiffs have no apparent symptoms of lung cancer and are not
seeking conventional damages, Judge Gertner wrote. Instead, they
want medical monitoring -- regular screenings to detect early
signs of lung cancer.  The plaintiffs claim that if they do
eventually develop the disease, the screenings will increase their
likelihood of survival almost six-fold.

No class member would be eligible if they have been diagnosed with
lung cancer or are under a doctor's care for suspected lung
cancer, and all must have smoked Marlboro cigarettes within
Massachusetts, she wrote.  Marlboro cigarettes are designated
because that is the brand the two plaintiffs smoked.

Richard Daynard, a law professor at Northeastern University and
chair of its Tobacco Products Liability Project, said that if the
plaintiffs win, the case will likely spawn dozens of similar suits
in federal courts across the country. "It's a tremendously
important case," he said.  The case before Gertner, he added, will
probably turn on whether the chest scans save lives.  A growing
body of evidence, he said, indicates that they do.

The plaintiffs named in the suit are Patricia Cawley, of Rockland,
and Kathleen Donovan, of Randolph. They say they began to smoke
more than 30 years ago and suffered lung tissue damage that
greatly increases their risk of developing lung cancer.  Lung
cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among men and women,
and is one of the most difficult cancers to treat, according to
the American Cancer Society.  It is very hard to detect when it is
in the earliest, most treatable stage.  About 87% of lung cancer
deaths are caused by smoking.

                  Philip Morris to Appeal Ruling

In a separate report, the Globe says Philip Morris USA plans to
appeal the decision.  "The overwhelming majority of federal and
state courts have rejected class certification of smokers' claims,
including those seeking medical monitoring, because the claims
raise issues unique to each individual smoker," said Murray
Garnick, a spokesman for the company. "T[he] ruling is contrary to
the law and we will ask the court of appeals to reverse the
decision."

The company also said in a statement issued Thursday that it still
had "numerous strong defenses" available to it if the case
proceeds.


QUEBEC: Status Indians' Suit Over Fuel Tax Payment Not Yet Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action regarding status Indians' payment of fuel tax has
not been filed yet.

On June 30, 2003, the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations
of Quebec and Labrador filed a motion in Quebec Superior Court for
authorization to file a class action on behalf of all status
Indians (except for James Bay Crees) who have paid Quebec fuel tax
since July 1, 1973 (the date on which this tax came into force) on
purchases of fuel on a reserve in Quebec.

The Court authorized this class action in May 2007 but the class
action has not been filed yet.

Quebec fuel tax legislation requires status Indians to pay the
fuel tax embedded in the price of fuel at the pump but allows them
to claim a rebate of the tax paid from the Quebec Ministry of
Revenue.

The class action alleges that many status Indians failed to file a
rebate claim for the fuel tax they paid and that the rebate system
is not valid as the tax should not have been paid in the first
place in view of the federal Indian Act, which exempts from taxes
the property of a status Indian when it is located on a reserve.

The amounts the class action could potentially involve have not
yet been ascertained.  The Grand Chief of the Assembly of First
Nations of Quebec and Labrador and the Minister responsible for
Aboriginal Affairs have publicly indicated their preference for a
negotiated settlement of this issue.

No new developments were reported in Quebec's June 9, 2010, Form
18-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010.

Quebec is the largest by area of the ten provinces in Canada
(1,541,000 square kilometers or 594,860 square miles,
representing 15.4% of the geographical area of Canada) and the
second largest by population.


TAKE-TWO: Inks Stipulations to Settle "GTA" Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a consolidated action against Take-Two Interactive
Software, Inc., sent the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York a proposed stipulation and order dismissing
the plaintiffs' claims, according to the company's June 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2010.

In July 2005, the company received four complaints for purported
class actions, which were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs, alleged purchasers of the company's Grand Theft
Auto: San Andreas game, assert that the company engaged in
consumer deception and false advertising, breached an implied
warranty of merchantability and were unjustly enriched as a result
of its alleged failure to disclose that Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas contained "hidden" content.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, declarations of various
violations of law and litigation costs.

In January 2006, the City Attorney for the City of Los Angeles
filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, alleging
violations of California law on substantially the same basis as
the consumer class action.

The company removed the LA City Attorney lawsuit to federal court,
and it was consolidated with the consumer class action.

In December 2007, the SDNY Court preliminarily approved a
settlement of the consumer class action.

In July 2008, however, the SDNY Court refused to certify the
proposed settlement class on the basis that, under controlling
case law issued after the parties negotiated the settlement, the
plaintiffs could no longer meet their burden of showing that the
case could proceed on the proposed class basis, regardless of
whether the purpose of certification was for litigation or
settlement.

The plaintiffs subsequently applied for, and on April 15, 2009 the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted, permission
to file an interlocutory appeal.  The appeal is now pending.

On or about Jan. 29, 2010, the company entered into a settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs in all of these cases,  except the
LA City Attorney, that would resolve their claims on a non-class
basis.

On Feb. 10, 2010, the parties sent the SDNY Court a proposed
stipulation and order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims.  Should
the SDNY Court enter the parties' agreed order, plaintiffs also
will withdraw their interlocutory appeal, finally concluding their
lawsuits.

Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. -- http://www.take2games.com/
-- is a global publisher, developer and distributor of interactive
entertainment software, hardware and accessories.  The company
operates in two segments: publishing and distribution. The
publishing segment consists of Rockstar Games, 2K Games, 2K Sports
and 2K Play publishing labels.  The company develops, markets and
publishes software titles for gaming and entertainment hardware
platforms, including Sony's PLAYSTATION3 (PS3) and PlayStation2
(PS2) computer entertainment systems; Sony's PSP
(PlayStationPortable) (PSP) system; Microsoft's Xbox 360 (Xbox
360) video game and entertainment system; Nintendo's Wii (Wii) and
DS (DS) systems, and for the personal computers (PC) and Games for
Windows.  The company's distribution segment, which includes its
Jack of All Games subsidiary, distributes its products, as well as
software, hardware and accessories produced by others to retail
outlets in North America.


TAKE-TWO: Awaits Court OK of Settlement in Stock Backdating Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., is awaiting approval from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York of an
agreement to settle a consolidated complaint alleging backdating
of stock options.

In February and March 2006, four purported class action complaints
were filed against the company and certain of its then current and
former officers and directors in the SDNY Court.

The actions were consolidated, and in April 2007 the lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended complaint which
contained allegations related to purported "hidden content"
contained in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and the backdating of
stock options, including the investigation thereof conducted by
the Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors and the
restatement of the company's financial statements relating
thereto.

The complaint was filed against the company, its former Chief
Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its former
Chairman of the Board, its Rockstar Games subsidiary, and one
officer and one former officer of the company's Rockstar Games
subsidiary.

The lead plaintiffs sought unspecified compensatory damages and
costs including attorneys' fees and expenses.

In April 2008, the Court dismissed, with leave to amend, all
claims as to all defendants relating to Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas and certain claims as to the company's former CEO, CFO and
certain director defendants relating to the backdating of stock
options.

In September 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended
consolidated complaint seeking to reinstate these claims which the
company opposed.

On Aug. 31, 2009, the company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the lead plaintiffs to comprehensively settle
all claims asserted by them against the company, its Rockstar
Games subsidiary and all of the current and former officers and
directors named in the actions.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company will pay
approximately $20.1 million into a settlement fund for the benefit
of class members, approximately $15.3 million of which will be
paid by the company's insurance carriers and the balance of
approximately $4.8 million has previously been accrued for in the
company's financial statements.

In addition to the payment to the settlement fund, the company
will also supplement the substantial changes that it has already
implemented in its corporate governance policies and practices.

The proposed settlement is subject to the completion of final
documentation and preliminary and final approval by the SDNY
Court.  Neither the company, its subsidiary nor any of the
individuals admit any wrongdoing as part of the proposed
settlement agreement.

No further updates were reported in the company's June 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2010.

Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. -- http://www.take2games.com/
-- is a global publisher, developer and distributor of interactive
entertainment software, hardware and accessories.  The company
operates in two segments: publishing and distribution. The
publishing segment consists of Rockstar Games, 2K Games, 2K Sports
and 2K Play publishing labels.  The company develops, markets and
publishes software titles for gaming and entertainment hardware
platforms, including Sony's PLAYSTATION3 (PS3) and PlayStation2
(PS2) computer entertainment systems; Sony's PSP
(PlayStationPortable) (PSP) system; Microsoft's Xbox 360 (Xbox
360) video game and entertainment system; Nintendo's Wii (Wii) and
DS (DS) systems, and for the personal computers (PC) and Games for
Windows.  The company's distribution segment, which includes its
Jack of All Games subsidiary, distributes its products, as well as
software, hardware and accessories produced by others to retail
outlets in North America.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Agrees to Settle "Rees-Levering" Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a suit against Toyota Motor Credit Corp. alleging
failure to comply with the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance
Act of California have entered into a settlement agreement to
resolve the matter, according to the company's June 10, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010.

A cross-complaint alleging a class action in the Superior Court of
California Stanislaus County, Garcia v. Toyota Motor Credit
Corporation, filed in August 2007, claims that TMCC's post-
repossession notice failed to comply with the Rees-Levering
Automobile Sales Finance Act of California.

Three additional putative class action complaints or cross-
complaints were filed making similar allegations that TMCC's post-
repossession notice failed to comply with Rees-Levering.

The cases were coordinated in the California Superior Court,
Stanislaus County and a Second Amended Consolidated Cross-
Complaint and Complaint was subsequently filed in March 2009.  The
Second Amended Consolidated Cross-Complaint and Complaint seeks
injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement and other equitable
relief under California's Unfair Competition Law.

As a result of a mediation in January 2010, the parties agreed to
settle all of the foregoing matters.  The proposed settlement, for
which the company has adequately accrued, is subject to
preliminary and final court approval.

A fourth case was recently filed.  The company has requested the
court to include this case in the settlement, but the court has
not yet ruled on the request.

Toyota Motor Credit Corp. -- http://www.toyotafinancial.com/--
provides a range of finance and insurance products to authorized
Toyota and Lexus vehicle dealers and, to a lesser extent, other
domestic and import franchise dealers and their customers in the
U.S. and Puerto Rico.  It also provides finance products to
commercial and industrial equipment dealers (industrial equipment
dealers) and their customers.  TMCC provides a range of finance
products, including retail financing, leasing, and dealer
financing to vehicle and industrial equipment dealers and their
customers.  It also provides marketing, underwriting, and claims
administration related to covering certain risks of vehicle
dealers and their customers.  TMCC also provide coverage and
related administrative services to its affiliates.  The company is
wholly owned by Toyota Financial Services Americas Corp. (TFSA).


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Suits Over Recall of Toyota and Lexus Models
----------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corp. faces several lawsuits purporting to
seek class action status relating to the recall of certain Toyota
and Lexus models by Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., according to
the company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2010.

During the latter part of fiscal 2010 and in early fiscal 2011,
TMS announced several recalls and temporary suspensions of sales
and production of certain Toyota and Lexus models.  As a result of
the TMS recall-related events, TMCC and certain affiliates are
named as defendants in several lawsuits purporting to seek class
action status.

TMCC and certain affiliates are named as defendants in ten
putative class actions in which plaintiffs allege they purchased
or leased Toyota or Lexus vehicles that allegedly share a common
design that allow the vehicles to experience sudden unintended
acceleration and/or braking defects.

On April 9, 2010, the cases were consolidated into a multidistrict
litigation, In Re:  Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration
Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, and
transferred to the Central District of California.  Plaintiffs
seek compensatory and punitive damages, reformation of their lease
and finance contracts and the cessation of payment collection on
leases and finance contracts from owners of defective vehicles.

On March 12, 2010, the Orange County District Attorney filed a
similar suit in the California Superior Court in Orange County and
seeks an injunction and statutory penalties.

Toyota Motor Credit Corp. -- http://www.toyotafinancial.com/--
provides a range of finance and insurance products to authorized
Toyota and Lexus vehicle dealers and, to a lesser extent, other
domestic and import franchise dealers and their customers in the
U.S. and Puerto Rico.  It also provides finance products to
commercial and industrial equipment dealers (industrial equipment
dealers) and their customers.  TMCC provides a range of finance
products, including retail financing, leasing, and dealer
financing to vehicle and industrial equipment dealers and their
customers.  It also provides marketing, underwriting, and claims
administration related to covering certain risks of vehicle
dealers and their customers.  TMCC also provide coverage and
related administrative services to its affiliates.  The company is
wholly owned by Toyota Financial Services Americas Corp. (TFSA).


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Bondholder's Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corp. and certain affiliates are named as
defendants in a putative bondholder class action lawsuit captioned
Harel Pia Mutual Fund vs. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
according to the company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2010.

The suit was filed on April 8, 2010, alleging violations of
federal securities laws.

Plaintiffs allege defendants failed to disclose that there was a
major design defect in Toyota's acceleration system, and seek
damages based upon losses incurred in connection with the purchase
of TMCC bonds.

Toyota Motor Credit Corp. -- http://www.toyotafinancial.com/--
provides a range of finance and insurance products to authorized
Toyota and Lexus vehicle dealers and, to a lesser extent, other
domestic and import franchise dealers and their customers in the
U.S. and Puerto Rico.  It also provides finance products to
commercial and industrial equipment dealers (industrial equipment
dealers) and their customers.  TMCC provides a range of finance
products, including retail financing, leasing, and dealer
financing to vehicle and industrial equipment dealers and their
customers.  It also provides marketing, underwriting, and claims
administration related to covering certain risks of vehicle
dealers and their customers.  TMCC also provide coverage and
related administrative services to its affiliates.  The company is
wholly owned by Toyota Financial Services Americas Corp. (TFSA).


UNION CARBIDE: NGOs Say Funds for Bophal Clean-up Not Enough
------------------------------------------------------------
G.S. Mudur, writing for The Telegraph in Calcutta, India, reports
that activists and non-government organizations have said the
Rs300 crore pledged by the group of ministers to clean up the area
around the Bhopal gas disaster site is arbitrary and ignores the
scale of the contamination.  They, however, are reluctant to say
how much money would be needed to clean up the contamination,
saying only further studies can establish that.

The group of ministers last week submitted a report to the Prime
Minister, recommending a Rs1,300-crore package of compensation for
victims of the gas disaster and Rs300 crore for the site clean-up,
among other initiatives.

Toxic wastes released by the Union Carbide factory in Bhopal from
the 1970s up to the night of the gas leak on December 2, 1984,
have accumulated up to 3km from the factory, activists campaigning
for the rights of Bhopal gas victims have said.

Studies by non-government environmental groups have revealed the
presence of trichlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene, mercury,
napthalene and other potentially toxic chemicals on factory
grounds, in stockpiles, or at disposal sites, they said.

Several thousand people live in the 3km zone around the factory
and are exposed to the contaminants through water and soil. A non-
government survey in 2002 had shown contaminants in soil, water
and breast milk.

"This contamination has been known for years," said Satinath
Sarangi, a metallurgical engineer from Banaras Hindu University
and a member of the Bhopal Group for Information and Action, a
non-government agency. "Our environmental regulators have blindly
trusted the polluters and our scientific agencies have protected
the polluters," Mr. Sarangi said.

The National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, a
government centre, had stated in the mid-1990s the contaminants
had not spread beyond the plant's premises and would take 23 years
to reach the groundwater.

But internal documents of the Union Carbide in the U.S. suggest
that the company was aware of the contamination, said Mr. Sarangi,
who obtained the papers through a class action suit filed by
Bhopal survivors in a New York court.

The company's own study of landfill areas and effluent treatment
pits had revealed organic contamination varying from 10% to 100%.
"All samples caused 100 per cent mortality to fish in toxicity
assessment studies," one document said.

Mr. Sarangi estimates that thousands of tonnes of contaminated
waste would need to be transported for treatment and
decontamination.  "It's also been estimated that the clean-up
would require pumping water and treating it for 20 years," he
said.

"The Rs 300 crore proposed by the GoM is inadequate."

An affidavit filed in the New York court by Tota Ram Chouhan, a
former Union Carbide plant operator in Bhopal, states that from
December 1969 to December 1984, chemicals and by-products had been
dumped "in and around the factory".

The Union Carbide management had dumped hundreds of tonnes of
various chemicals in and around the Bhopal factory, according to
the affidavit.  It lists several chemicals including 500 tonnes of
ortho-dichlorobenzene, 300 tonnes of chloroform, 100 tonnes of
methylene chloride, 50 tonnes of naphthalene and five tonnes of
methyl isocyanate.  The gas leak had killed 8,000 people in the
first three days and at least another 15,000 through its long-term
effects, rights groups say.


WE GIVE TO GET: Class Suit Alleges Deceptive Business Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah McClain, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. We Give To Get LLC, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-26796 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty. June 22, 2010), accuses the Internet seller of gift
certificates of falsely representing to consumers that 10% of all
gross revenue collected in each month (with a minimum donation of
$5,000 per month) will be donated to charity of the consumer's
choice, to attract sales of its "GO-GO" certificates, in violation
of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act.  Ms. McClain says that in truth, We Give To Get has only
donated $9,770 as of May 27, 2010, when it should have donated to
charity, at a bare minimum, $45,000 at the end of May.  We Give To
Get was launched in September 2009.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          William C. Gray, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          350 North LaSalle St., Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370

We Give To Get sells gift certificates to a variety of merchants
and purportedly donates a specified minimum amount to charities of
their customers' choosing.

The lawsuit alleges that We Give To Get "unethically induces
consumers to purchase gift certificates by untruthfully stating
that 10% of sales or a $5,000.00 monthly minimum, will be going to
charity."

However, according to the lawsuit, We Give To Get has failed to
donate almost $40,000.00 to charity as promised in their Terms of
Use.  In addition, We Give To Get has continued to advertise and
attract business based on the fact that they are donating to
charities.  Finally, contrary to Illinois law, the lawsuit alleges
that We Give To Get attaches illegal expiration dates to gift
certificates that are bought by consumers.

Recently, We Give To Get amended their Terms of Use to eliminate
their requirement of contributing at least $5,000.00 a month.
"This does not in any way satiate their contractual obligation to
make the donations to charity.  The promise of at least $5,000 a
month to charity was a significant inducement to their customers,"
said Bond.

We Give To Get's Terms of Use promising to give at least $5,000
per month to charity can be found at:

                        http://is.gd/d1AqO

According to Mr. Gray, "It is illegal and wrong for companies to
defraud consumers, but for a company to commit such malfeasance
while pretending to be charitable -- that is just unconscionable."

Edelson McGuire, LLC, formerly known as KamberEdelson LLC, is a
commercial litigation and legal and political consulting firm with
attorneys in Illinois, New York, California, and Florida.  The
firm's attorneys have been recognized as leaders in these fields
by state and federal legislatures, national and international
media groups, the courts and their peers.  They have testified
before the United States Senate on class action issues and have
repeatedly been asked to work on federal and state legislation and
policy issues involving banking, cellular telephony and consumer
privacy.  Their attorneys have appeared on hundreds of national
and international television and radio programs to discuss their
cases and class action and consumer protection issues more
generally.  Their class settlements are collectively worth over
one billion dollars and have changed the consumer protection
policies of numerous industries.


WHITNEY CANADA: Court to Rule on Class Petition by September
------------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Francois Bertrand at The Ottawa Citizen reports that about
160 investors will have to wait until the end of summer to know if
a class-action suit to recoup some of the $10 million they say
they lost will proceed.

The group has asked Quebec Superior Court to certify their suit
against B2B Trust, which handled the groups' self-directed RRSPs,
Desjardins Financial Services, Lloyd's Underwriters, Gatineau
notary Jean Lafreniere and real estate training company Whitney
Canada Inc.

Justice Michel Deziel said he would try to have a ruling on the
matter by September. "It's not a promise, but I will try," he told
a dozen investors in the courtroom.

Gananoque real estate investor David Brown is the main petitioner
of the group, which is trying to sue financial institutions tied
to three advisers, Francois Roy, Marc Jemus and Robert Primeau.
The investors allege that Messrs. Roy, Jemus and Primeau defrauded
them of more than $10 million and that B2B Trust, Lloyds
Underwriters, Desjardins Financial Service, notary Jean Lafreniere
and real estate training firm Whitney Canada are also liable.

None of the allegations have been proved in court.

On June 21, the group's lawyer Pierre Sylvestre, Esq., told
Justice Michel Deziel of the Quebec Superior Court that Messrs.
Roy, Jemus and Primeau had the same modus operandi.  In almost
every case, he said, the victims are former students at Whitney
Canada, where they took classes and seminars on investing in real
estate.  The advisers proposed investments, asked for proxy forms
and then got funds transferred to B2B Trust, a subsidiary of
Laurentian Bank of Canada, which registered the self-directed
RRSPs of the petitioners.

However, noted Francis Rouleau, representing Whitney Canada, only
70 of 162 petitioners took courses from Whitney Canada, or 43%.
"And only 43 per cent is not 'most', as the petition claims," said
Mr. Rouleau.

In a class-action suit, one must demonstrate a wrong, damages and
a collective dimension, Mr. Rouleau said.  In this case, because
of the intervention of various brokers, financial advisers and
notaries, "we can't talk of a common causal link," Mr. Rouleau
told the court.

Mr. Rouleau referred to the modus operandi presented Monday and
explained that since every respondent is liable according to the
petition, then the participation of each one is required for the
scheme to work.  "But that is not the case," said Mr. Rouleau.

The 162 petitioners can be divided into 18 sub-groups, based on
whether they took a course with Whitney Canada, if they dealt with
Mr. Lafreniere and which financial adviser was issuing directions
to B2B Trust.

"Is there anything less collective than that" This stupefying
disparity removes any common dimension and shatters any common
denominator," said Mr. Rouleau.  If the suit was to proceed, it
would lead to many individual trials, when it comes to quantify
the losses and contribution of the respondents.

Earlier in the day, B2B Trust, which registers self-directed
RRSPs, said it is not responsible for millions allegedly lost.

Lawyer Marzia Frascadore, Esq., explained that Mr. Brown opened an
account with B2B Trust for a self-directed RRSP.  His signature
appears above many disclaimers stating that the trustee is to
receive directions from his financial adviser and that B2B "is not
responsible for the choice of investments in the RRSP. It's a
crystal-clear form," said Mr. Frascadore.  "We don't examine the
investments. I hold the funds, I follow the instructions, I do
paperwork.  That's it."

Mr. Lafreniere's lawyer, Fabienne Beauvais, Esq., has told Justice
Michel Deziel, "If someone was blind, has been blinded, it is
certainly not Jean Lafreniere."  The petitioners accuse Mr.
Lafreniere of turning a blind eye, allowing the fraud to take
place.

"It is perhaps the investors, who had a speculative goal. They
decided to get aboard a train, which was going fast and well, as
they were told. There was certainly not a lack of advice provided
by Lafreniere," added Mr. Beauvais.

Mr. Beauvais said that, at the heart of the matter, the alleged
fraud was committed by Messrs. Roy, Jemus and Primeau, who helped
themselves to the money held by their companies.  Court learned on
Monday that all three cannot be sued at this time, as they have
declared bankruptcy, which is not yet discharged.

In his rebuttal, the investors' lawyer told the court that "our
burden is to show that the allegations are sufficient and serious.
Our allegations rest on many documents and on evidence, which
opens the door to more evidence that will be presented in court."

Pierre Sylvestre, Esq., added that the respondent's lawyers did
not present "decisive arguments that could convince (the judge)
that we do not stand a chance."

Marc Champagne, Esq., representing LLoyd's Underwriters called the
petition a fishing expedition.  "They aimed at just about
everybody.  There are three broke individuals, but they aimed at
everything that gravitated around them." However, added Champagne,
these firms are so far from each other that there is no way to
show a common activity or a plot.

                            *********

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  * * *