/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100715.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 15, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 138


99 CENT: Sued in California for Increasing Prices to $1
AUDIOVOX CORP: Suits Over Cell Phone Radiation Remain Pending
AFFILIATED COMPUTER: 2nd Cir. Allows Lawyer to Pursue Class Suit
AIR FRANCE: Pays $87-Mil. to Settle US Cargo Class Suit
AKEENA SOLAR: Calif. Ct. Says Hodges and Sabbag Suits Unrelated

BABCOCK & WILCOX: Sued for Improper Disposal of Toxic Materials
BIDZ.COM: State Ct. Dismisses Bahram Akhavan Derivative Suit
CAMBRIDGE CREDIT: Judge Clears Epstein and Sheppard in Suit
CANADIAN SOLAR: Bid for Lead Plaintiff Due August 2
CARMAX INC: Units Continue to Face Claims in Consolidated Suit

CEPHEID: Issues Recall of Xpert MRSA/SA BC Product
CITIGROUP INC: NY Court Allows Bondholders' Suit Over CDOs
DUPONT CO: Spelter Residents Won't Challenge Reduced Damages
FACEBOOK INC: Suit Complains About Revised Privacy Settings
IVANHOE HOUSE: Owners to Pay $82,500 to Settle Lawsuit

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Suit Over Tylenol, Other Kids' Medicine
LANIER GOLF: Owners to Seek at Least $100K Legal Fees in Peck Case
LOUISIANA: Education Board Sued for Unlawful Arrest of Kids
LOUKAS DEVELOPMENT: Sued for Not Paying Interest on Security Dep.
MASSACHUSETTS: Court Preliminary OKs Strip-Searched Case Accord

MULTIBAND CORPORATION: Faces Overtime Lawsuit by Installers
NEVADA CHEMICALS: Utah App. Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Braun Suit
PALM INC: Ill. Suit Complains About Defective Smart Phone, PDAs
PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES: Kendall Probes Hefner's Buyout Proposal
POSTROCK ENERGY: Stipulation of Settlement Filed in Court

TELESCOPE INC: 9th Cir. Denies Early Appeal in Lottery Suit
TOMOTHERAPY INC: Accused in Wisc. Suit of Misleading Shareholders
WELLS FARGO: District Judge Grills Bank's Trial Witnesses
WYETH: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Suit in N.J.

* News Agency Probe Says Georgians Pay $50-Mil. More for Hot Gas


99 CENT: Sued in California for Increasing Prices to $1
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims that 99
Cent Only Stores raised its price per item to 99.99 cents in
September 2008 -- in effect, to $1 -- hoodwinking its customers
for millions of dollars a year, in Los Angeles Superior Court.

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

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

No additional information was disclosed in the company's
July 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2010.

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

AFFILIATED COMPUTER: 2nd Cir. Allows Lawyer to Pursue Class Suit
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports the
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled Monday that
a lawyer who sued a student loan company over hidden fees in loan
agreements cannot be forced into arbitration and can pursue a
class action.

The circuit in Fensterstock v. Affiliated Computer Services,
09-1562-cv, said that the loan agreement's class action and class
arbitration waiver clause was unconscionable and unenforceable.

The decision by Judges Amalya L. Kearse, Jose A. Cabranes and
Chester J. Straub clears the way for Joshua G. Fensterstock to be
lead plaintiff in a putative class action against Affiliated
Computer Services Inc., which serviced student loan notes for
Education Finance Partners, a now-bankrupt California corporation.

Mr. Fensterstock borrowed the principal amount of $52,915 at a
fixed interest rate in 2006 to help pay for consolidated loans
from his education at the Hofstra University School of Law. He
graduated from Hofstra in 2003 and is now a solo practitioner in
Manhattan.  He sued claiming that Education Finance Partners and
Affiliated Computer Services would apply payments that were not
received by a certain day each month to interest instead of
applying the payments to principal.  He alleged that, if the
misallocations continued, he would be "required to make an
enormous lump-sum payment" at the end of the repayment period.

The companies moved to enforce a clause in the loan agreement
barring a class action and compelling arbitration on a case-by-
case basis.  But Southern District Judge Thomas P. Griesa denied
the motions on March 24, 2009, applying California law in finding
the clause unconscionable.

Affiliated Computer Service appealed to the circuit, where oral
arguments were heard in November.

Judge Kearse, writing the panel's 32-page opinion, cited a
California Civil Code provision stating that "All contracts which
have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone
from responsibility for his own fraud . . . are against the policy
of the law."

Judge Kearse said that "this principle is often a consideration in
'the justification of class action lawsuits,'" in the consumer
fraud context, where the proof is common and it is impracticable
for individual consumers to bring lawsuits because the expense is
great and the recovery is small.

At the circuit, Affiliated Computer Services argued that Mr.
Fensterstock's argument that the clause was unconscionable was
belied by the fact he was an attorney who specialized in complex
financial transactions, and he did not allege he was surprised by
the contract language.

But Judge Kearse said that "where the clause is oppressive,
procedural unconscionability may exist even in the absence of

And Judge Kearse said that such a clause "presented to the weaker
party on a take-it-or-leave-it basis without the opportunity for
meaningful negotiation is, under California law, oppressive, and
hence satisfies the requirement that there be at least a minimal
showing of procedural unconscionability."

The judge said Mr. Fensterstock was just three years out of law
school when he applied for the consolidated loan, and while his
experience in the law might have made him aware of the class
action and class arbitration waiver, "we have seen nothing in his
education, experience, or expertise to suggest that he had any
meaningful opportunity to negotiate that clause out of the

Judge Kearse said the clause met the standard for
unconscionability because "it is a standard contract of adhesion
drafted by a party that had superior bargaining power," the
disputes on the allocation between interest and principal
"predictably involve small amounts of damages," and Mr.
Fentsterstock alleged the two companies were "deliberately
carrying out a scheme to cheat large numbers of borrowers out of
individually small amounts of money."

Mr. Fensterstock is represented by:

     Orin Kurtz, Esq.
     212 East 39th Street
     New York, New York 10016
     Telephone: (212) 889-3700
     Facsimile: (212) 684-5191
     E-mail: okurtz@abbeyspanier.com

Affiliated Computer is represented by:

     Edward K. Lenci, Esq.
     780 Third Avenue, 4th Floor
     New York, New York 10017-2024
     Telephone: (212) 471-6200
     Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
     Telex: 880248
     E-mail: elenci@hinshawlaw.com

AIR FRANCE: Pays $87-Mil. to Settle US Cargo Class Suit
Air France, KLM and Martinair have entered into an agreement to
settle damage claims brought against them in the United States
alleging violations of the antitrust laws in connection with air
cargo shipping services.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, which is subject to
court approval, the carriers will pay a total of $87 million in
exchange for a release from all claims by direct purchasers of air
cargo shipping services to and from the United States between 2000
and 2006.  This amount will be deducted from the provision posted
in 2008.

The civil actions, which have been brought as class actions and
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, were initially filed in 2006 after the U.S.
Department of Justice and the European Commission initiated
investigations of the air cargo industry.

In 2008, the three carriers entered into plea agreements in the
United States to resolve that investigation.  The investigation by
the EU Commission remains pending.

Agence France-Presse relates that the civil class action suits
were filed in 2006 after the US and European Union authorities
launched a probe into price rigging of the US cargo market.  Four
major airlines, including Air France-KLM and Cathay Pacific
Airways, had to pay US fines worth $504 million when they were
found guilty in 2008 of conspiring to fix air cargo prices,
officials said Thursday.  Air France-KLM paid the largest amount,
$350 million, to settle this criminal case, leaving the civil
plaintiffs in the United States to pursue their claims.

          European Indirect Purchaser Victims Get Nothing

Hausfeld & Co LLP and Claims Funding International plc both
express dismay at Air France-KLM compensating freight forwarders
for the effects of the air cargo cartel while offering their
European indirect shipper victims nothing.

Class Counsel in the United States, including international
claimant law firm Hausfeld LLP, has announced an air cargo price-
fixing settlement agreement with Societe Air France, Koninklijke
Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V., and Martinair Holland N.V.

The airlines have agreed to pay an $87 million settlement to a
class of direct purchasers of airfreight services in respect of
liability under United States law for their acknowledged part in
an air cargo cartel that breached competition laws around the
world but have refused to offer their European indirect purchaser
victims any compensation.  Airlines have already admitted to
conspiring with competitors in order to fix fuel surcharges for
air freight shipping services.

The claims arise out of a global cartel in international air
freight services which is believed to have occurred between
January 2000 and late 2006.  Both Air France-KLM and Martinair
have pleaded guilty to price fixing to regulatory authorities in
the US, Australia and Canada and were recently fined by the
regulatory authority in South Korea.  Substantial fines have been
paid by both airlines and a Martinair executive, Frank de Jong,
has been sentenced to serve 8 months in prison.

Under the US settlement, Air France-KLM has agreed to pay money
exclusively to direct purchasers (such as freight forwarders) but
has refused to compensate the many indirect purchasers of air
freight services, including those in Europe, who have also
suffered losses as a result of the cartel.  Indirect purchasers
are specifically excluded from the definition of those who will be
giving up their claims.  This allows shippers to whom Air France-
KLM have denied compensation to pursue their claims and recover
the full amount of their damages in other jurisdictions around the

Commenting on the settlement, Michael Hausfeld of Hausfeld LLP,
one of the co-lead counsel in the US case and who has been
appointed the co-lead counsel principally responsible for foreign
law claims, said:

"This is an important settlement and a major step forward for Air
France and KLM toward paying damages for their admitted price-
fixing conduct. We now look forward to seeking appropriate redress
for the indirect shippers who also suffered substantial unlawful
overcharges as a result of the cartel."

CFI has signed a large group of European claimants who spent more
than EUR3.35 billion on international air freight during the
cartel period.  CFI's Managing Director Peter Koutsoukis, said:

"It is regrettable that one of Europe's great airlines would
decide to pay damages to their US customers but offer nothing to
European based customers. European cartel victims have remained
silent for too long but now they are standing up in large numbers
and demanding their right to redress"

Volvo Car Corporation, represented globally by Hausfeld with
respect to the airfreight matter, commented through its senior
litigation counsel, Lars Bertler:

"As a major shipper of cargo on the airlines comprising this
price-fixing cartel, VCC is pleased to be compensated by Air
France for the economic damages we suffered for our US-related
direct purchases.  Yet we are disappointed that this global cartel
member fails to compensate us for any of the shipments we made
through an intermediary or for any of our non-US-related damages.
So along with hundreds of other uncompensated victims in Europe
and around the world, we intend to pursue our claims for all
damages caused by the airfreight cartel."

Erik Larson at Bloomberg News reports that EU spokeswoman Amelia
Torres said in an e-mail, "As Air France said in its written
statement, the investigation is still going on in Europe."  She
declined to comment further.

The settlement follows on from an $85 million price-fixing
settlement secured in 2006 by US Class Counsel with German flag
carrier Lufthansa on behalf of purchasers of air freight shipping
services to, from and within the US.  In this settlement Lufthansa
did offer compensation to indirect purchasers of air freight.

Between them Hausfeld and CFI separately represent some $5 billion
to $6 billion of combined air cargo traffic purchased by shippers
in the cartel period located on multiple continents, including
several among the Fortune Global 500 and Forbes Global 2000, as
well as both the Business Week and Interbrand 100 Best Global
Brand.  These companies have claims for compensation in Europe
resulting from the loss they suffered as a result of the actions
of the cartel.

Hausfeld & CFI have signed a formal co-operation agreement to
coordinate the pursuit of claims for shippers within the EU.

Accordingly, Hausfeld and CFI have written a demand letter to Air
France-KLM demanding compensation for European victims of the
cartel and CFI are set to institute proceedings in the Netherlands
against Air France-KLM imminently.

According to Bart Koster at Dow Jones Newswires, Claims Funding
International intends to file a claim for at least EUR335 million
against Air France-KLM for alleged cargo price-fixing violations,
the company's managing director Peter Koutsoukis told Dow Jones

"We sent a letter of demand to Air France-KLM Monday and asked
them to respond within 14 days.  If they do not respond in a
satisfying way, we will go to court," Mr. Koutsoukis said.

Dow Jones further reports that the letter was sent on the same day
that Air France-KLM announced the $87 million settlement to end
the U.S. class action.  Dow Jones reports that Mr. Koutsoukis
said, "The amount of EUR335 million is 10% of the total amount of
EUR3.35 billion my clients have paid to the cartel airlines in the
2000-2006 period for their shipments as we believe the illegal
overcharge was at least 10% and we shall also be claiming

British Airways plc already faces an action brought by flower
importers and a growing group of other shippers in the English
High Court by Hausfeld & Co LLP.  Other shipper actions are
pending in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Korea.

The European Commission has still not delivered a decision on the
cartel despite having investigated it since December 2007.

More information on the case are available at:


Hausfeld & Co LLP, led by industry doyen Michael Hausfeld, Esq.,
is widely recognized as one of the leading and best-known claimant
law firms in the world.  It is at the forefront of numerous
innovative legal actions that are expanding the quality and
availability of legal recourse for aggrieved individuals and
businesses around the world.

The partners of Hausfeld LLP have obtained numerous landmark
judgments and settlements for individuals and businesses, and have
been champions for the private enforcement of competition and
antitrust laws globally for almost four decades.

To contact Hausfeld:

     12 Gough Square
     EC4A 3DW
     United Kingdom
     E-mail: jcorden@hausfeldllp.com

Claims Funding International plc is a litigation funder
specializing in multi party claims for the victims of corporate
wrongdoing. It pays all the costs and assumes all the risk of the
litigation in return for a commission, only if successful.

To contact Claims Funding International:

     Peter Koutsoukis
     Claims Funding International plc
     Telephone: +353872769443 mob
                +35312374634 dir
     E-mail: pkoutsoukis@claimsfunding.eu

AKEENA SOLAR: Calif. Ct. Says Hodges and Sabbag Suits Unrelated
Plaintiffs seek determination from the United States District
Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division, as to whether Evelyn
Sabbag, et al. v. Barry Cinnamon, et al., Case No. 10-cv-02735,
should be related to Sharon Hodges, et al. v. Akeena Solar, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 09-cv-02147.  Plaintiffs contend that both cases
concern substantially the same parties, transaction, and events.
To date, Defendants have not filed any opposition.

On July 9, 2010, District Judge James Ware held that the cases are
not related within the meaning of Civil Local Rule 3-12(a).
Although the two actions concern substantially the same
transaction and events, the legal claims, named defendants, and
procedural posture are different.  The First Action is a
securities class action alleging violations of the federal
securities laws while the Second Action is a shareholder
derivative suit alleging a breach of fiduciary duty as well as
other state law claims.  The First Action names Akeena Solar,
Inc., Barry Cinnamon, and Gary Effren as Defendants, while Akeena
Solar is a nominal Plaintiff in the Second Action, with Cinnamon,
Effren, Edward Roffman, Jon Witkin, George Lauor, and David
Wallace named as Defendants.  Finally, the First Action is further
along procedurally, since it has already survived a Motion to
Dismiss and is moving toward class certification.  The Second
Action was only recently filed on June 22, 2010.  In light of the
differences in legal claims, defendants, and procedural posture of
the two actions, the Court found that there is no risk of "an
unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting
results if the cases are conducted before different judges."

BABCOCK & WILCOX: Sued for Improper Disposal of Toxic Materials
Erin McAuley at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims that leaks from two nuclear processing plants
poisoned dozens of people in the Kiskiminetas Valley and killed 10
of them.  More than 35 named plaintiffs claim that Babcock &
Wilcox Power Generation Group, B&W Technical Services and Atlantic
Richfield Co. "sought to prevent details about their operations
from reaching workers, [the class] or surrounding community"
though the defendants were "aware of the fact that they were
releasing toxic and radioactive materials into the air, water and

The plants at issue are in the Borough of Apollo and Parks
Township.  The class claims the plants' operators "opted not to
take sufficient remedial measures to eliminate or abate emissions
and releases."  This led to a "casual attitude towards
environmental and health safety, even though they were aware of
the health risks posed to by such releases," according to the
53-page complaint.

Because the operators withheld information about dangers and "took
steps to prevent public regulatory agencies from disclosing non-
trade secret documents to the public," the class claims they were
"deprived of information crucial to their ability to limit their
exposure or take other appropriate action."

The 39 named plaintiffs joined more than 20 others who filed three
other lawsuits against the nuclear plant operators in April and
May this year.

Members of the class claim to have "inhaled, ingested or otherwise
absorbed [toxic] substances" that caused them to suffer from
cancers of the lung, skin, esophagus, breast, bladder, colon,
skin, prostate, nose, kidney, liver, uterus, mouth, bone and
stomach.  They also say the emissions caused adenocarcinoma,
undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, Hodgkin's lymphoma and non-
Hodgkin lymphoma.

The class claims the emissions caused at least 10 deaths,
including that of Michael McComb, who died of melanoma after
swimming in the Kiski River downstream from the facilities.

The class claims the wrongful discharge of radioactive and toxic
materials into public water, emission of radioactive and toxic
materials from facility stacks, exposure of workers, who could
then spread contamination outside the worksite, and improper
disposal of materials which leaked from storage tanks and disposal
systems all contributed to their exposure.

They claims that the facilities "never, in their entire history,
operated in compliance with applicable state, local and federal
laws," and that the plant operators knew it.  They claim the
plants "routinely exceed(ed) federal stack emission regulations,"
violated Pennsylvania laws on waste disposal of, failed to
maintain equipment in proper working order, failed to monitor its
systems and exposed workers to "unlawful and hazardous
concentrations of radioactive and toxic materials."

The class claims their properties also have been damaged by the
"hazardous [and] radioactive waters released from facilities."

Both nuclear plants were developed in the 1950s by Nuclear
Materials and Equipment Corp., about 40 miles northeast of

The facilities were the first privately owned commercial nuclear
processing plants, and used to be the largest privately owned
processor of nuclear materials, including plutonium, uranium,
strontium, cesium, and thorium, according to the complaint.

The class claims that the Apollo facility, which produced
fissionable materials to be used as nuclear fuel, is by the
Kiskiminetas River and within a 1,000-foot radius of residents,
with some resident homes only 50 feet away.

The complaint states that processing activities ended in 1984, but
the site is still used for evaluations and remedial work.

The nuclear facility in Parks Township, which was once the
"largest non-governmental plutonium development and fabrication
operation in the U.S." and was used to dispose of radioactive
waste through the mid to late 1990's, is also close to
Kiskiminetas River, immediately north of the community of

Both plaints manufactured and processed materials for nuclear
fuel, and processed, stored and produced uranium, enriched
uranium, plutonium and other radioactive materials and other non-
radioactive chemicals, "many of which are classified as
hazardous," to be used by both commercial and government

In 1967 plant operations were taken over by Atlantic Richfield ,
which is still an active participant in remediation and
decommissioning activities, according to the complaint. Operations
were passed on in 1971 to Babcock & Wilcox and B&W Technical
Services, the current licensees and directors of operations.

The class seeks damages for violations of the Price Anderson Act,
negligence, liability, private nuisance, trespass,
misrepresentation and concealment, civil conspiracy, and wrongful

A copy of the Complaint in Altmire, et al. v. Babcock & Wilcox
Power Generation Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00908 (W.D.
Pa.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruce E. Mattock, Esq.
          David B. Rodes, Esq.
          Jason T. Shipp, Esq.
          1030 Fifth Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: 412-471-3980

               - and -

          Fidelma L. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Orent, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE, LLC
          321 South Main St.
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: 401-457-7723

BIDZ.COM: State Ct. Dismisses Bahram Akhavan Derivative Suit
Bidz.com announced that the Superior Court of California, County
of Los Angeles, dismissed Bahram Akhavan v. Bidz.com, Inc. et al.,
the first of two shareholder derivative cases filed against the
Company's Board of Directors.

"We are very pleased with the dismissal of yet another lawsuit,
which will allow us to continue to move forward and focus on our
operations," said David Zinberg, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer.  "The dismissal of this complaint validates the position
we have long maintained -- that these claims were without merit
and that Bidz has acted in the best interests of its

The most recent dismissal follows the February 2010 dismissal of a
consumer class action complaint against the Company alleging that
the Company engaged in unfair business practices, including "shill

Motions to Dismiss Pending Federal Securities Fraud and Federal
Derivative Case

The Federal Securities Fraud Class Action

In May and June, 2009, the Company and certain of its officers
were named as defendants in three parallel class action complaints
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California (Ramon Gomez v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-3216
(CBM) (C.D. Cal.; filed on May 7, 2009); James Mitchell v.
Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-03671 (CBM) (C.D. Cal.; filed on May
22, 2009); Mark Walczyk v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-0397 (CBM)
(C.D. Cal.; filed on June 3, 2009)). On July 30, 2009, the Court
consolidated the cases.  The consolidated complaint charges
violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that the Company failed to
disclose unethical and fraudulent business practices, that it did
not have controls in place to prevent "shill bidding," that it
uses unreliable or false appraisal prices on its merchandise, and
that it failed to correctly account for and disclose in detail its
co-op marketing contributions and minimum gross profit guarantees.

On May 25, 2010, in a 30-page opinion, the Honorable Consuelo B.
Marshall of the United States District Court granted the Company's
Motion to Dismiss the securities fraud complaint with leave to
amend. On June 22, 2010, the plaintiff filed its amended
complaint. The Company will file a Motion to Dismiss the amended
complaint this month and anticipates that the Court will hear the
motion in September, 2010.

The Federal and State Derivative Cases

In May and July, 2009, the Company and certain of its officers and
its Board of Directors were named as defendants in two shareholder
derivative lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, and the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, respectively (Bahram Akhavan
v. Bidz.com, Inc. et al. BC414198 (filed May 20, 2009) (the "State
Derivative Action") and Farris Hassan v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al.,
cv09-04984 (CBM) (C.D. Cal. (filed July 10, 2009) (the "Federal
Derivative Action")).  The State and Federal Derivative actions
allege violations of law, including breaches of fiduciary duties,
waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and violations of
California Corporations Code.  Amended complaints in both actions
also include allegations relating to the Company's co-op marketing
contributions and minimum gross profit guarantees.

On April 27, 2010, the United States District Court granted the
Company's Motion to Dismiss the Federal Derivative Action with
leave to amend. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and,
later this month, the Company will file another Motion to Dismiss,
which the Company anticipates will be heard by the Court in
November 2010.

On February 26, 2010, the Superior Court of California granted the
Company's Motion to Dismiss the State Derivative Action with leave
to amend.  In response, on April 9, 2010, Mr. Akhavan, the
plaintiff in the State Derivative Action, made a demand to inspect
certain books and records of the Company, which the Company
rejected on the grounds, among other reasons, that the request
lacked a proper purpose under Delaware law.  On May 5, 2010, Mr.
Akhavan filed an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery to
compel the Company to permit inspection of the requested
documents.  In June 2010, after the Company filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Delaware action, Mr. Akhavan withdrew both the State
Court Derivative Action, as well as the Delaware action, resulting
in the dismissal of both cases.

Please see the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2010, for a description of other legal proceeding involving the

Bidz.com (Nasdaq:BIDZ) -- http://www.bidz.com/-- founded in 1998,
is a leading online retailer of jewelry. Bidz offers its products
through a live auction format as well as a fixed price online
retail store, Buyz.com.  Bidz.com's auctions are also available in
Arabic, German and Spanish.  Bidz also operates Modnique --
http://www.modnique.com/-- a division of Bidz.com, an exclusive
private sale shopping site for members-only, offering authentic
premium brand name merchandise. Modnique offers its members
exclusive access to 24-72 hour sales events on designer apparel,
accessories, shoes, and houseware and much more at price points up
to 85% below traditional retail prices.

CAMBRIDGE CREDIT: Judge Clears Epstein and Sheppard in Suit
Jeff Jeffrey, writing for The National Law Journal, relates a
federal judge in Massachusetts on Thursday threw out a lawsuit
against Epstein Becker & Green and Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton that alleged they had been improperly paid for
representing a credit repair organization in a multimillion-dollar
class action.

Epstein Becker and later, Sheppard Mullin, represented Cambridge
Credit Counseling Corp., which faced a class action that accused
the credit counseling company of holding itself out as a non-
profit organization while its owners raked in millions.  That
class action was ultimately settled for $259 million.

In November, the class and its name plaintiffs, Andrew and Kelly
Zimmerman, filed suit against the two firms and several of the
firms' former lawyers.  That suit argued that because Epstein
Becker and Sheppard Mullin were paid out of a trust set up for the
members of the class, the firms should have to pay those fees
back.  The suit also alleged that Epstein Becker and one of its
former partners, Paul Kaplan, Esq., violated the Credit Repair
Organizations Act by advising Cambridge in "in making statements
in their advertising promising credit repair."

The November complaint alleges that Epstein Becker received $6.9
million while representing Cambridge.  The complaint also alleges
that Sheppard Mullin received $1.1 million for its work on behalf
of Cambridge after Epstein Becker withdrew from the underlying

In a decision handed down July 8, Judge Michael Ponsor granted
summary judgment in favor of Epstein Becker and Sheppard Mullin.
Judge Ponsor's 13-page order says that because the class had only
been certified in the underlying case and not in the new lawsuit,
it had violated Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

"[The plaintiffs] argue that the class certification proceedings
of the separate, prior [Cambridge] Action, involving entirely
different defendants, were sufficient to satisfy the Rule 23
requirements for this subsequent proceeding. No authority supports
this disturbing notion," Judge Ponsor writes in the opinion.
"Plaintiffs cite no precedent, and this court is aware of none,
holding that the certification in one proceeding may migrate to
satisfy the Rule 23 requirements in a different proceeding against
different defendants."

Neil Dilloff, Esq., a DLA Piper partner representing Epstein
Becker, said he was pleased with Judge Ponsor's decision to grant
the motion to dismiss in the case.  But he added that he "wouldn't
be surprised" if the Zimmermans appealed Judge Ponsor's decision
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit on behalf of the

Sheppard Mullin represented itself in the case.  Kaplan, Esq., who
is now a partner in Arent Fox's New York office, hired Jonathan
Lerner, Esq., Kurt Hemr, Esq., and Maura Barry Grinalds, Esq., all
partners at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, to represent
him.  The other defendants in the suit were represented by Mark
Goidell, Esq., a Garden City, New York-based solo practitioner.

The plaintiffs were represented by lawyers from Los Angeles-based
Morris, Polich & Purdy; Charlottesville, Va.-based Michie Hamlett,
Lowry Rasmussen & Tweel; and New York-based Whalen & Tusa.

CANADIAN SOLAR: Bid for Lead Plaintiff Due August 2
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP said all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Canadian Solar,
Inc. (Nasdaq:CSIQ) between May 26, 2009 and June 1, 2010,
inclusive, have 21 days until the August 2, 2010, deadline to move
the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the securities fraud class
action lawsuit.  The case filed by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP,
Janbay v. Canadian Solar, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-4430-RWS, has
been assigned to the Honorable Robert W. Sweet, United States
District Judge for the Southern District of New York.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or
Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com , or visit our Web site at

The Complaint charges Canadian Solar and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Canadian Solar is a vertically-integrated manufacturer of silicon,
ingots, wafers, cells, solar modules (panels) and custom-designed
solar power applications, which delivers solar power products to
customers worldwide.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their
public statements concerning Canadian Solar's business, operations
and prospects were materially false and misleading.  Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose: (1) that with respect to sales to certain customers,
it was uncertain whether the Company would receive full cash
payments; (2) that certain goods were subsequently returned after
the quarter end; (3) that, as a result, the Company's financial
results were overstated during the Class Period; (4) that the
Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5)
that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

CARMAX INC: Units Continue to Face Claims in Consolidated Suit
CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto
Superstores West Coast, Inc. continue to face the remaining
claims in a consolidated lawsuit regarding the sales consultant
putative class.

On April 2, 2008, John Fowler filed a putative class-action
lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax
Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.

Subsequently, two other lawsuits, "Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax
Auto Superstores California, LLC," and "Justin Weaver v. CarMax
Auto Superstores California, LLC," were consolidated as part of
the Fowler case.

The allegations in the consolidated case involve:

   (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation
       in lieu thereof;

   (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees
       related to meal and rest breaks and overtime;

   (3) failure to pay overtime;

   (4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
       provisions; and

   (5) unfair competition.

The putative class consists of sales consultants, sales managers,
and other hourly employees who worked for the company in
California from April 2, 2004, to the present.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages,
interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive
relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims with
respect to the sales manager putative class.  On June 16,
2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to
comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions.
The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication
with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the
sales consultant putative class.  The plaintiffs have indicated
that they will appeal the court's ruling regarding the sales
consultant overtime claim.

In addition to the plaintiffs' overtime claim, the claims
currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales
consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and
rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay
wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and
rest breaks; and (3) unfair competition.

On June 16, 2009, the court entered a stay of these claims
pending the outcome of a California Supreme Court case involving
related legal issues.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages,
interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive
relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

No further updates were reported in CarMax, Inc.'s July 12, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 31, 2010.

CarMax, Inc. -- http://www.carmax.com/-- is a holding company
and its operations are conducted through its subsidiaries.  The
company is a retailer of used cars.

CEPHEID: Issues Recall of Xpert MRSA/SA BC Product
Cepheid is initiating a recall of all lots of Xpert(R) MRSA/SA BC
(blood culture) product.  The recall is a corrective action, which
does not require return of product to the manufacturer.  Customers
may continue to use the product; however, when a MRSA negative/SA
positive result is obtained, the result should be interpreted as
"MRSA indeterminate/SA positive, antimicrobial susceptibility
testing pending."  Further testing should be performed using a
FDA-cleared, phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing
method on isolated colonies recovered from the blood culture
bottle, as instructed in the Corrective Action Notice dated
July 1, 2010.  MRSA positive/SA positive results can still be
reported as such.  The new instructions will be incorporated in
the product labeling.  The Xpert MRSA/SA BC product produces
false-negative MRSA results, which could potentially contribute to
incorrect treatment of an MRSA infection.

Hospitals or laboratories that have purchased the Xpert MRSA/SA BC
product subject to this corrective action, may continue to use all
product within their inventory subject to the new instructions
stated in the Corrective Action Notice as of July 1, 2010.
Customers should contact Cepheid Technical Support at 888-838-3222
if they have questions regarding this corrective action.

This corrective action is a Class I recall, which includes these
product catalog numbers:



Cepheid voluntarily issued this corrective action after learning
of rare, false-negative MRSA results from the testing of blood
culture samples.  The FDA has been apprised of this action.

Although the product appears to continue to meet performance
claims as outlined in the current product labeling, an ongoing
failure investigation has identified the emergence of novel MRSA
strain types as one of the causes of false-negative MRSA results.
The failure investigation has not fully determined the remaining
causes of the false-negative MRSA results.  To date, one adverse
event has been reported to the FDA through the MDR process.

The Xpert MRSA/SA BC product was distributed to hospital
laboratories worldwide.  For US customers it can be identified by
Cepheid labeling: Xpert MRSA/SA BC, Catalog Number GXMRSA/SA-BC-
10. For European customers, the product can be identified by

Customers with questions may contact the company at 888-838-3222.

Any adverse reactions experienced with the use of this product,
and/or quality problems should also be reported to the FDA's
MedWatch Program by phone at 1-800-FDA-1088, by Fax at 1-800-FDA-
0178, by mail at MedWatch, HF-2, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20852 9787, or on the MedWatch Web site at

    For Customer Inquiries:
    Rick Fletcher
    Vice President, Regulatory
    Compliance & Quality Systems
    Telephone: (408) 542-8566
    E-mail: rick.fletcher@cepheid.com

    For Investor Inquiries:
    Jacquie Ross
    Cepheid Investor Relations
    Telephone: (408) 400-8329
    E-mail: investor.relations@cepheid.com

    For Media Inquiries:
    Jared Tipton
    Cepheid Corporate
    Telephone: (408) 400-8377
    E-mail: jared.tipton@cepheid.com

CITIGROUP INC: NY Court Allows Bondholders' Suit Over CDOs
Dow Jones Newswires' Chad Bray reports that U.S. District Judge
Sidney Stein in Manhattan on Monday allowed a consolidated lawsuit
by bondholders to proceed against Citigroup Inc.

Dow Jones says the bondholders claim Citigroup failed to disclose
its exposure to $66 billion worth of collateralized debt
obligations backed by subprime mortgages, as well as other "toxic"
mortgage-backed assets.  The bondholders purchased Citigroup bonds
in a series of offerings between May 2006 and August 2008, in
which the bank raised more than $71 billion.  The bank's bonds
plummeted in value when the bank's true exposure was disclosed in
November 2008, the bondholders claim.

Reuters reports that the plaintiffs include pension funds in
Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota and Pennsylvania, including the
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority rail system, as well
as New Jersey-based American European Insurance Co.  Reuters says
28 current and former Citigroup officers and directors are among
the defendants, including Pandit and his predecessor, Charles
Prince, and former senior adviser Robert Rubin.

Reuters says nearly 80 co-underwriters on the bond offerings,
including Bank of America Corp, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and
Morgan Stanley, were also named as defendants, though 61 have been
dismissed from the case.

Dow Jones relates Judge Stein:

     -- held that the bondholders had standing to bring some of
        their claims regarding the bank's CDO exposure, saying in
        part that 48 bond offerings by the bank during that period
        used the same three registration statements; and

     -- dismissed some claims related to the company's statements
        regarding its exposure to $100 billion in structured
        investment vehicles backed by subprime mortgages and
        $11 billion in auction-rate securities, which bondholders
        claim were illiquid.

"We are pleased that some claims were dismissed, and will
vigorously defend the remaining claims on the merits," a Citigroup
spokeswoman said in a statement, according to Dow Jones.

The case is In re: Citigroup Inc Bond Litigation, case no.
08-9522 (S.D.N.Y).

The bondholders are represented by:

     Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq.
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, Pennsylvania
     Telephone: (610) 667-7706
                (610) 822-2229
     Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
     E-mail: azivitz@btkmc.com

Based in New York, Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) -- is a global
diversified financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a broad range of financial services to consumer and
corporate customers.  Citigroup has roughly 200 million customer
accounts and does business in more than 140 countries.
Citigroup's businesses are aligned in three reporting segments:
(i) Citicorp, which consists of Regional Consumer Banking (in
North America, EMEA, Asia, and Latin America) and the
Institutional Clients Group (Securities and Banking, including the
Private Bank, and Transaction Services); (ii) Citi Holdings, which
consists of Brokerage and Asset Management, Local Consumer
Lending, and a Special Asset Pool; and (iii) Corporate/Other.

As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on November 25, 2008,
the U.S. government entered into an agreement with Citigroup to
provide a package of guarantees, liquidity access, and capital.
The U.S. Treasury and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
agreed to provide protection against the possibility of unusually
large losses on an asset pool of roughly $306 billion of loans and
securities backed by residential and commercial real estate and
other such assets, which will remain on Citigroup's balance sheet.
As a fee for this arrangement, Citigroup issued preferred shares
to the Treasury and FDIC.  The Federal Reserve agreed to backstop
residual risk in the asset pool through a non-recourse loan.

Citigroup, the third-biggest U.S. bank, received $45 billion in
bailout aid.  Other bailed-out banks, including Bank of America
Corp., Wells Fargo & Co., have pledged to repay TARP money.
JPMorgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley,
repaid TARP funds in June.  Citigroup is selling assets to repay
the bailout funds.

Citigroup is one of the banks that, according to results of the
government's stress test, need more capital.

DUPONT CO: Spelter Residents Won't Challenge Reduced Damages
The Associated Press reports that Spelter, W.Va. residents who won
a class-action lawsuit against DuPont over long-term exposure to
toxins won't fight a court ruling that reduced punitive damages
awarded in the case.  The lawsuit alleged that a former zinc plant
in Spelter contaminated surrounding air, soil and water.

In March, the West Virginia Supreme Court reduced the $196 million
punitive damages award to about $117.7 million. Another $20
million was cut to credit Delaware-based DuPont for cleanup costs.

Lawyers for the residents said in a recent filing in Harrison
County Circuit Court that they would accept the reduced punitive
damages award.

The state Supreme Court decided in March to send the case back to
Harrison County Circuit Judge Thomas A. Bedell for a trial on
whether the underlying claims were filed in time to permit the
remaining damages.  Judge Bedell has yet to set a trial date.

DuPont had been involved with the property since 1899, when it
bought the land for a gunpowder mill, and had operated the plant
until selling it in 1950.  It then took it over when then-owner
T.L. Diamond closed it in 2001.

The smelter produced more than 4.4 billion pounds of zinc over 90
years, while churning out such toxins as arsenic, cadmium and lead
in the process. In 2007, a jury concluded that DuPont was liable
for damages and that it had engaged in "wanton, willful, or
reckless conduct."

FACEBOOK INC: Suit Complains About Revised Privacy Settings
Nickeesha Swaby at Courthouse News Service reports that concerns
about Facebook's revised privacy settings has spread to Canada, in
a class action in Quebec Superior Court.  The class claims that
Facebook subscribers own the information posted on their pages,
and that Facebook "without proper communication" changed its terms
of service to reveal its customers' private information -- even
those who deleted their accounts.

"The petitioner, as with other users, is the owner of all the
content and information posted on his Facebook.com account and
said content and information cannot lawfully be appropriated by
the respondent without the proper and informed consent of the
petitioner and other users.  Facebook converts and misappropriates
said content and information for its benefit and gain," says lead
plaintiff Patrice St.-Arnaud.

Beginning in 2009, Facebook made its customers' names, photos,
friends, favorite Internet pages, favorite products and people,
their genders, and other information publicly available, according
to the complaint.

The class claims Facebook made money from its customers personal
data by letting third parties us it for targeted advertising

"The data collected from its users is the key commercial asset
Facebook employs to sell advertising and drive traffic to the
Facebook.com website," the complaint states.

The class claims that Facebook should not be allowed to reap the
economic benefits of its "unlawful conduct" without giving its
customers a slice of the pie.

It is estimated that 48% of Canadians have a Facebook account.
Similar class action lawsuits against Facebook have been filed in
Toronto and Winnipeg.

A copy of the Complaint in St-Arnaud v. Facebook Inc., Case No.
06-000511-101 (Quebec Super. Ct.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          10 Notre-Dame E., Suite 200
          Montreal, Quebec H2Y 1B7
          Telephone: 514-842-7776

IVANHOE HOUSE: Owners to Pay $82,500 to Settle Lawsuit
The owners and operators of Ivanhoe House Apartments, an apartment
complex in Ann Arbor, Mich., have agreed to pay $82,500 to settle
a lawsuit filed by the Justice Department alleging that they had
discriminated against African-American home-seekers, in violation
of the Fair Housing Act.

The Justice Department's lawsuit, which was handled jointly by
attorneys from the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Eastern District of Michigan, was filed in March
2010.  The lawsuit was based upon evidence generated by a series
of fair housing tests conducted by the Fair Housing Center of
Southeastern Michigan, a private non-profit organization located
in Ann Arbor.  In the tests, individuals posed as prospective
renters for purposes of determining whether the defendants were
providing equal treatment to similarly situated home seekers in
compliance with the Fair Housing Act.

As alleged in the complaint, the testing revealed that Ivanhoe
House Apartments repeatedly and consistently treated African-
American apartment-seekers less favorably than white apartment-
seekers. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Ivanhoe House
Apartments denied the availability of apartments to African-
Americans, failed to show them available apartments, and/or quoted
them later dates of availability than they quoted to white
persons.  A separate federal lawsuit was filed by the Fair Housing
Center.  The settlement resolves both lawsuits.

"Racial discrimination in housing harms not only those who were
denied housing, but also the communities in which they live," said
Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights
Division.  "[The] settlement is a clear signal of our commitment
to vigorously enforce the Fair Housing Act and to fight illegal
discrimination in housing."

"Unfortunately, racial discrimination in housing persists in
Michigan and elsewhere," said Barbara L. McQuade, U.S. Attorney
for the Eastern District of Michigan.  "We will continue to
protect the rights of all persons in this District to obtain the
housing of their choice free from unlawful discrimination."

Under the settlement, which must still be approved by U.S.
District Court Judge Sean F. Cox, the defendants will pay $35,000
in damages to three victims who the United States contends were
discriminated against because of their race at Ivanhoe House
Apartments; pay $7,500 in a civil penalty to the United States;
and pay $40,000 to the Fair Housing Center of Southeastern
Michigan as damages for the non-profit's efforts in testing and
investigating the apartment complex.  The settlement also requires
the defendants and their employees to undergo fair housing
training, conduct self-testing of the apartment complex, and
provide periodic reports to the Justice Department and the Fair
Housing Center of Southeastern Michigan.

The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing
based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability
and familial status.  More information about the Civil Rights
Division and the laws it enforces is available at
http://www.justice.gov/crt/  Individuals who believe that they
may have been victims of housing discrimination can call the
Housing Discrimination Tip Line at 1-800-896-7743, e-mail the
Justice Department at fairhousing@usdoj.gov or contact HUD at

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Suit Over Tylenol, Other Kids' Medicine
AboutLawsuits.com reports that Johnson & Johnson faces a class-
action lawsuit over recalled children's medication, which was
filed on behalf of consumers who say that the company botched
attempts at compensating customers who paid for the defective

Five children's medication lawsuits were filed by six different
consumers last week in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Northern Illinois.  The lawsuits accuse Johnson & Johnson of fraud
and racketeering, saying that the company failed to recall the
drugs properly and did not do enough to allow consumers to recover
losses.  The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for the
Johnson & Johnson lawsuits.

The initial McNeil Healthcare children's medication recall on
April 30 affected 40 different liquid medication products,
including Tylenol, Benadryl, Motrin and Zyrtec.  McNeil is a
subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson.

The recall affected 136 million bottles of children's medications,
and resulted in the shutdown of the company's Ft. Washington,
Pennsylvania, plant, and the suspension of the production of all
of McNeil's children medications.  Following that recall, the FDA
has received nearly 800 complaints, including at least seven
reports of deaths associated with the medication.  However, the
FDA says its investigations so far have not directly linked any of
the recalled products to any of the deaths.

According to the complaints, Johnson & Johnson only provided
coupons to consumers who purchased recalled drugs.  However, since
the company has, at least temporarily, discontinued the recalled
products, the coupons are discounts on drugs that currently do not
exist.  In addition, the lawsuits note that by handing out the
coupons, Johnson & Johnson assumes consumers would want to
purchase their products again at some point in the future, which
may not be the case.

The lawsuits also quote allegations by U.S. lawmakers that the
company has conducted "phantom recalls" of bad products, by having
contractors remove potentially defective products from store
shelves without notifying the FDA or consumers that there was a
problem.  This charge was leveled against the company at a recent
hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Edolphus

Some lawmakers, who have started a congressional investigation
into Johnson & Johnson's drug manufacturing activities, are now
pushing for expanded FDA power to force drug recalls to help the
agency quickly deal with future drug contamination problems.

LANIER GOLF: Owners to Seek at Least $100K Legal Fees in Peck Case
As reported in the July 13th edition of the Class Action Reporter,
the Court of Appeals of Georgia held that the lawsuit Michael D.
Peck filed lawsuit on behalf of himself and all homeowners with
lots adjacent to the Lanier Golf Club, Inc., cannot proceed as a
class action against the golf course.

Julie Arrington at Forsyth County News reports that the golf
course's owners, Jack Manton and George Bagley Jr., said they plan
to seek attorneys and litigation fees from Mr. Peck in an amount
exceeding $100,000.  Messrs. Manton and Bagley said in a statement
Friday that they were pleased with the timeliness of the Appellate
Court's decision in Mr. Peck's case, which they called "a
vindictive, frivolous lawsuit based upon no relevant facts or
applicable law to support its claims."

"Lanier Golf Club has no choice but to vigorously defend our
constitutional property rights and aggressively respond to
individuals or groups that frivolously file suits with no legal
basis," the statement said.

Forsyth County News also reports that Mr. Peck's attorney, Bob
McFarland Sr., Esq., said he thinks the case will go back before
Cherokee County Superior Court Judge Frank Mills, the trial court
judge who in 2009 dismissed the case.

"In all this two and a half years of fooling around we haven't
ever gotten to the main issue," Forsyth County News quotes Mr.
McFarland as saying.  "So it appears to me that we're going to be
in a position to get to the main issue, but only as to one
plaintiff, Michael Peck."

Mr. McFarland, Forsyth County News relates, explained that the
"main issue" in the case is whether there is an implied easement
to the golf course.  Mr. McFarland said there are options with the
Peck case, including a request for review by the Georgia Supreme
Court, and that no decisions have been made on what happens next
other than it can proceed to final judgment.

LOUISIANA: Education Board Sued for Unlawful Arrest of Kids
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that an elementary
school's "brutal and unconstitutional policy" of "intrusive
arrests and seizures" of little kids left a first-grader terrified
of school, afraid that "grown-ups with guns may hurt him again,"
the black child's parents say in a federal class action.  The
parents say their first-grade son, and other kids, "are unlawfully
seized, arrested, handcuffed, shackled, and chained to furniture
for very minor violations of school rules."

Suing on behalf of his son, J.W., Sebastian Weston claims the
Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education allowed the
Recovery School District and its administrators and officers to
enforce the "brutal" and unreasonable policies.

Defendants include Sarah T. Reed Elementary School Principal
Daphyne [sic] Burnett, School Police Officer Willis, and
Superintendent Paul Vallas.

Mr. Weston says his son was handcuffed and shackled to a chair at
Reed Elementary in New Orleans on May 4, after he failed to follow
his teacher's directions.

Two days later, J.W. was handcuffed and shackled by another
security officer, identified as defendant Willis, after arguing
with another student in the cafeteria, the dad says.

Mr. Weston said the experience has transformed the formerly
"outgoing 6-year-old to a fearful and withdrawn child who has
difficulty sleeping through the night."

As a result of the trauma, J.W. "is currently under the care of a
mental health professional and now lives with ongoing trauma and
severe emotional distress."

Mr. Weston seeks declaratory judgment, an injunction, and punitive
damages for unlawful arrest, unreasonable and intrusive seizure,
violation of the Fourth Amendment, assault and battery, infliction
of emotional distress and false imprisonment.

After the lawsuit was filed, Recovery School District spokesman
Ken Jones said in a statement that the district investigated, and
concluded that it "was an isolated incident."

"The student was not arrested and the employee involved was
terminated," the district told the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

Mr. Jones did not identify which security officer was fired or
provide any other additional details, saying the district does not
comment on pending litigation.

A copy of the Complaint in J.W. v. Vallas, et al., Case No.
10-cv-01925 (E.D. La.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thena K. Robinson, Esq.
          Sheila A. Bedi, Esq.
          Poonam Juneja, Esq.
          4431 Canal St.
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 486-8982
          E-mail: trobinson@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Carol Kolinchak, Esq.
          1600 Oretha Castle Haley Blvd.
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 522-5437
          E-mail: ckolinchak@jjpl.org

LOUKAS DEVELOPMENT: Sued for Not Paying Interest on Security Dep.
Laura Monk, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Loukas Development, Inc., et al., Case No.
2010-CH-29420 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. July 9, 2010), asserts
claims for violations of the City of Chicago Residential Landlord
and Tenant Ordinance, Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 12, et seq.
("CRLTO").  Ms. Monk says Loukas violated the CRLTO by: (a)
failing to attach the City-mandated CRLTO security deposit
interest rate disclosures that included the current year's
interest rate to written lease agreements when initially offered
to tenants or prospective tenants, (b) failing to pay tenants
interest on their security deposits within 30 days after the end
of each tenant's 12 month rental period and (c) subjecting
tenants' security deposits to the claims of creditors and/or
otherwise not holding tenants' security deposits as the property
of the tenant making the deposit.   Loukas Development is the
owner of the apartment leased to Plaintiff and at least 17 other
residential dwelling units in Chicago.  Ms. Monk states that she
paid a $25 application fee and a $850 security deposit with a
single bank check in the amount of $875 when she submitted her
rental application.

Ms. Monk relates that she vacated her dwelling unit on April 30,
2010, the expiry date of her lease, but that Loukas returned her
security deposit only after 30 days from said date, without paying
any interest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Sobek, Esq.
          10 S. Riverside Plaza, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 756-1330

               - and -

          Zachary Martel, Esq.
          754 Genesee Dr.
          Naperville, IL 60563

MASSACHUSETTS: Court Preliminary OKs Strip-Searched Case Accord
George Graham at The Republican reports that a federal judge has
given preliminary approval to a $1.1 million settlement in a civil
suit against Franklin County Jail in Massachusetts on behalf of
486 arrestees who were strip-searched there without cause.

The state has agreed to pay $1,162,468 to settle the class action
suit.  Each participating class member will receive an equal share
of the settlement, up to a cap of $3,500.

"I find that it is fair and reasonable," District Court Magistrate
Judge Kenneth Neiman said.

In October, Judge Neiman had ruled that the strip-searches were

The suit was originally filed by Gregory Garvey of Sunderland.  He
was strip-searched at the jail in January 2007 after being
arrested for failing to appear in court on a traffic violation.
He was held overnight and was strip-searched again before a court
appearance, at which his case was dismissed.

"I am glad it's slowly coming to an end," said Mr. Garvey after
Judge Neiman reviewed and gave preliminary approval to the
agreement. "Justice moves slow, but justice is being served."

Mr. Garvey, according to the settlement, will receive an
additional $20,000 for the loss of his privacy and the time he has
spent on the case.  Mr. Garvey said, however, that he came forward
to right a wrong and not for the money.

"It was degrading," Mr. Garvey said. "I don't think it was
necessary for a traffic violation."

The Franklin County jail strip-search policy was changed later in
2007, when a new jail opened.  At the time, David A. Lanoie, who
was chief of staff for Sheriff Frederick B. Macdonald, said the
old jail, built in 1887, was dilapidated and so cramped that for
security reasons Mr. Garvey and others who had been arrested and
were awaiting arraignment were always strip-searched because often
they were literally inches from prisoners already in the jail.

"The facts are the facts.  We had a 19th-century facility, old and
dilapidated," Mr. Lanoie said.

On Monday, Judge Neiman praised the work of the plaintiff's
attorney, Howard Friedman, Assistant Attorney General Kerry
Strayer and others involved in crafting the settlement.

The court has scheduled a final hearing on the fairness of the
settlement for Jan. 14, 2011.  If the court grants approval, money
will be sent to class members who submit claim forms.

Class members are defined as persons who were strip-searched
without individualized reasonable suspicion between March 28,
2004, and Feb. 24, 2007, at the Franklin County Jail.  They had to
be waiting for a first court appearance or for bail to be set for
a first court appearance. And they had to be arrested on charges
that did not involve a weapon, drugs, contraband or a violent

Officials will now attempt to notify class members of the
settlement.  Class members must submit a claim form by Oct. 11 to
secure a settlement.  A copy of the form may be obtained at
http://www.FranklinCountyJailClass.com/or by writing to the
Garvey Claims Administrator, PO Box 2007, Chanhassen, MN 55317-

Officials said the form may be not available on the Web site for
another week or so.

Claims will be administered by Analytics Inc. of Minnesota.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court, follows a similar lawsuit
dealing with strip-searches in Hampshire County, which resulted in
a $205,000 settlement that involved nearly 100 plaintiffs in 2007.
The Hampshire County lawsuit was brought by Worthington lawyer
Charles V. Ryan IV, son of former Springfield Mayor Charles V.
Ryan.  The younger Ryan was arrested in early 2002 on a charge of
violating a restraining order obtained by his now ex-wife.

The plaintiff is represented by:

     90 Canal Street, 5th Floor
     Boston, MA 02114
     Telephone: (617) 742-4100

MULTIBAND CORPORATION: Faces Overtime Lawsuit by Installers
Nichols Kaster PLLP and Donati Law Firm LLP have brought a
putative nationwide action on behalf of installers/technicians
against Multiband Corporation, a Minnesota company.  The lawsuit,
entitled Edwards v. Multiband Corporation, Case No. 10-cv-02826,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota on Thursday, July 1, 2010.  Multiband is the second
largest independent field services provider for DirecTV.

Plaintiff Edwards performed installation and maintenance services
for DirecTV subscribers for Multiband. Multiband treated Edwards
as an "independent contractor."  Edwards alleges that he and other
similarly situated technicians should have been treated as
"employees" of Multiband because Multiband exercised substantial
control over their work.  As an employee, Edwards should have been
compensated for all of the overtime hours he worked each week.

Plaintiffs' attorney Rachhana T. Srey, Esq., explained, "like the
Department of Labor, we are focusing our attention on so-called
'independent contractors' because we truly believe that this is a
rampant problem in many industries, especially in the cable and
satellite television arena.  These installers work extremely long
hours, are usually paid only what they earn in 'piece-rates,' and
work under the control of companies who operate a scheme to avoid
paying overtime. It's not right."

Plaintiffs are represented by Paul J. Lukas and Rachhana T. Srey
from Nichols Kaster, PLLP, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and William
B. Ryan and Bryce Ashby from Donati Law Firm, LLP in Memphis,

Individuals may find additional information at
http://www.overtimecases.com/or by calling Nichols Kaster toll
free at (877) 448-0492.

NEVADA CHEMICALS: Utah App. Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Braun Suit
Irving S. Braun owned two hundred shares of the more than seven
million outstanding shares of Nevada Chemicals, Inc.  In 2008, he
challenged the sale of Nevada Chemicals to Oaktree Capital
Management, LP; Calypso Acquisition Corp.; Cyanco Holding Corp.;
and OCM Principal Opportunities Fund IV, LP.  Plaintiff initially
brought a direct class action against the Buyout Group, Nevada
Chemicals, and individual directors of Nevada Chemicals but later
amended his complaint, changing it to a derivative action.  In
both actions, he claimed that Defendants "breached their fiduciary
duties and negotiated the merger for inadequate consideration due
to their own self-interests."  The trial court dismissed
Plaintiff's action for lack of standing.

The Court of Appeals of Utah affirmed.  "Plaintiff has not
presented us with any appealable issues. He does not challenge the
trial court's ruling that he lacked standing to bring a derivative
claim. We do not address the question of whether his claim should
have been brought as a direct claim or as a derivative claim.
Plaintiff took this question away from the trial court by amending
his complaint to assert only a derivative claim," Judge J.
Frederic Voros Jr. wrote.  Judges William A. Thorne Jr., and
Stephen L. Roth concurred.

The case is Irving S. Braun, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Nevada Chemicals, Inc.; E. Bryan
Bagley; Nathan L. Wade; John T. Day; James E. Solomon; M. Garfield
Cook; Nevada Chemicals, Inc.; Oaktree Capital Management, LP;
Calypso Acquisition Corp.; Cyanco Holding Corp.; and OCM Principal
Opportunities Fund IV, LP, Case No. 20090493-CA (Utah App.).

A copy of the decision is available at


Mr. Braun is represented by:

     Jon V. Harper, Esq.
     Heather M. Sneddon, Salt Lake City,
     50 West Broadway, Suite 700
     Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-2006
     Telephone: (801) 534-1700
     Facsimile: (801) 364-7697

The defendants are represented by:

     Robert S. Clark, Esq.
     Stephen E. Hale, Esq.
     Jenifer L. Tomchak, Esq.
     Mark F. James, Esq.
     Phillip J. Russell, Esq.
     Suite 800, 185 South State Street
     Salt Lake City, Utah  84111-1537
     Telephone: (801) 532-7840
     Facsimile: (801) 532-7750

PALM INC: Ill. Suit Complains About Defective Smart Phone, PDAs
Courthouse News Service reports that Palm's Treo 700 series smart
phone/PDAs freeze and crash and have other problems, and Palm
responds to complaints by replacing them with devices with the
same defects, a class action claims in Cook County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Cioe v. Palm Inc., Case No. 10CH29545
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Illinois Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
          David Gorodess, Esq.
          Anita Dellaria, Esq.
          505 North LaSalle St., Suite 350
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 787-2717

PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES: Kendall Probes Hefner's Buyout Proposal
Kendall Law Group, a national securities firm led by a former
federal judge and a former U.S. Attorney, is investigating Playboy
Enterprises, Inc., for shareholders in connection with the
proposed management buyout.  The firm's investigation seeks to
determine whether Playboy and its Board breached their fiduciary
duties by not seeking a deal that would provide better value for
shareholders.  If you are a Playboy shareholder and would like
additional information about your rights, contact the Kendall Law
Group at 877-744-3728 or by email at skendall@kendalllawgroup.com

On July 12, 2010, Hugh Hefner announced that he is offering to
purchase all outstanding shares that he does not own and that he
is planning to take the company private.  Hefner is offering $5.50
per share in a deal worth approximately $185 million.  Friend
Finder Network announced plans to place a competing bid with
Friend Finder Chief Executive Marc Bell stating that Hefner's
offer "dramatically" undervalues Playboy.  Hefner, who owns
approximately 70% of Playboy's Class A common stock and 28% of its
Class B stock, stated in his proposal letter that he is "not
interested in any sale or merger of Playboy Enterprises, selling
his shares to a third party or entering into discussions with any
other financial sponsor for a similar transaction."

Kendall Law Group was founded by a former federal judge Joe
Kendall and includes a former United States Attorney, prosecutors
and securities lawyers who are experienced in complex securities
litigation.  Since leaving the bench and returning to trial work,
Mr. Kendall has had tremendous success at the prosecution of
patent, consumer and securities class action litigation either as
lead, co-lead or liaison counsel.  The firm has been counsel in
numerous merger and acquisition cases nationwide, including some
of the largest transactions in the United States.

To contact Kendall:

     Scott Kendall, Esq.
     3232 McKinney, Ste. 700
     Dallas, Texas 75204
     Telephone: (214) 744-3000
                (877) 744-3728 Toll Free
     Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
     E-mail: skendall@kendalllawgroup.com

POSTROCK ENERGY: Stipulation of Settlement Filed in Court
PostRock Energy Corporation reports that on July 9, 2010, a
stipulation of settlement was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma which, if approved by the Court,
will resolve the pending securities class actions, first-filed
derivative lawsuit, and two individual securities actions pending
against the company and its current and former officers and

The company intends to contribute $1 million to the settlement of
the lawsuits and approximately $0.4 million to resolve other
potential liabilities associated with the litigation, according to
the company's July 12, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Four putative class action complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma naming
QRCP, QELP and Quest Energy GP, LLC, the general partner of the
predecessor of QELP and certain of their then current and former
officers and directors as defendants.  The complaints were filed
by certain stockholders on behalf of themselves and other
stockholders who purchased QRCP common stock between
May 2, 2005, and August 25, 2008, and QELP common units between
Nov. 7, 2007, and Aug. 25, 2008.

The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933. The complaints allege that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
statements and concealing material facts concerning certain
unauthorized transfers of funds from subsidiaries of QRCP to
entities controlled by QRCP's former chief executive officer, Mr.
Jerry D. Cash. The complaints also allege that, as a result of
these actions, QRCP's stock price and the unit price of QELP was
artificially inflated during the class period.

On December 29, 2008, the court consolidated these complaints as
Michael Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Quest Energy Partners LP, Quest Energy GP
LLC, Quest Resource Corporation, Jerry Cash, and David E. Grose,
Case No. 08-cv-936-M, in the Western District of Oklahoma.

On September 24, 2009, the court appointed lead plaintiffs for
each of the QRCP class and the QELP class.  The lead plaintiffs
must file a consolidated amended complaint within 60 days after
being appointed. On October 13, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for partial modification of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 discovery stay, which the
defendants opposed and which the court denied on December 15,

On November 4, 2009, the court granted the lead plaintiffs'
unopposed request to file separate consolidated amended
complaints.  The court ordered that all pleadings and filings for
the QELP class be filed under Friedman v. Quest Energy Partners,
LP, et al., case no. 08-cv-936-M, and all pleadings and filings
for the QRCP class be filed under Jents v. Quest Resource
Corporation, et al., case no. 08-cv-968-M.

The QELP lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
November 10, 2009. The consolidated complaint names as additional
defendants David C. Lawler, Gary Pittman, Mark Stansberry, Murrell
Hall, McIntosh & Co. PLLP, and Eide Bailly LLP.  The QRCP lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on December 7, 2009,
which names Murrell, Hall, McIntosh & Co. PLLP, Eide Bailly LLP,
and various former QRCP directors as additional defendants.  On
December 23, 2009, QRCP and David C. Lawler filed a motion to
dismiss the Friedman complaint, and on December 28, 2009, QELP,
QEGP, Gary Pittman and Mark Stansberry filed a motion to dismiss
the Friedman complaint.  On Jan. 21, 2010, QRCP and the individual
director defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Jents complaint.
No response to the motion to dismiss has yet been filed in either

On February 2, 2010, mediation was held among the parties.  A
second round of the mediation was held on April 2, 2010.  An
agreement to settle all of the federal securities lawsuits has
been reached in principle. The Company is awaiting preparation and
execution of a formal settlement agreement, which will be subject
to Court approval. The Company is contributing $1 million to the
proposed settlement of the lawsuits.

PostRock Energy Corporation -- http://www.pstr.com/-- is a
vertically integrated independent energy company engaged in the
acquisition, exploration, development, production and
transportation of oil and natural gas in the Cherokee Basin, the
Appalachian Basin and Central Oklahoma.  PostRock has over 2,800
wells and nearly 2,200 miles of natural gas gathering pipelines in
the Cherokee Basin.  The company also owns and operates nearly 400
natural gas and oil producing wells and undeveloped acreage in the
Appalachian Basin of the northeastern United States and more than
1,100 miles of interstate natural gas transmission pipelines in
Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri.

TELESCOPE INC: 9th Cir. Denies Early Appeal in Lottery Suit
Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pulled the plug on an early appeal
by producers of "American Idol" and "Deal or No Deal," who say a
federal judge should have dismissed a class action accusing them
of running an illegal lottery by inviting viewers to compete for
cash prizes.

The American Idol Challenge broadcast a trivia question about the
popular talent show and invited viewers to text the correct answer
to a certain number for a 99-cent fee.  They could also enter it
online for free and were allowed up to 10 entries, each correct
submission giving them a shot at the cash prize.

"Deal or No Deal" featured a similar game, called Lucky Chase, in
which viewers were asked to choose a briefcase corresponding to a
winning number.

Five contestants who failed to win a prize "turned to the high-
stakes world of class action litigation," according to the ruling.

Their lawsuits were consolidated in Los Angeles Federal Court,
where the shows' producers urged U.S. District Judge Florence-
Marie Cooper to dismiss the class actions.  She refused, sparking
a "vehement" early appeal in which the defendants sought to
certify legal questions to the California Supreme Court while the
case was still pending.

A court typically certifies such questions only if there is
"substantial ground for difference of opinion," and an immediate
appeal might speed up the resolution.

Judge Cooper found no "difference of opinion," but agreed to let
the defendants appeal, anyway, "in the interests of comity."

The federal appellate panel in Pasadena said the producers have
not met the requirements for an early appeal.

Judge Cooper "expressly, and correctly, found that defendants had
failed to demonstrate a substantial ground for difference of
opinion," Judge Kim Wardlaw wrote.

"Therefore, the question of law should not have been certified,
and the certification order is jurisdictionally defective."

"American Idol" defendants include Telescope Inc., American Idol
Productions, Project Support Team, FremantleMedia North America,
19 Entertainment, CKX Inc., Fox Broadcasting Co. and Fox
Interactive Media.

The "Deal or No Deal" defendants are Endemol USA, NBC Universal,
Verisign, M-Qube and Don Jagoda Associates.

A copy of the Opinion in Couch v. Telescope Inc., et al., No.
08-56357, and Herbert, et al. v. Endemol USA Inc., et al., No.
08-56360 (9th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/dpVYW

Plaintiff-Appellees Darlene Couch, et al. are represented by:

          Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
          Sabrina S. Kim, Esq.
          Michiyo Michelle Furukawa, Esq.
          Andrew J. Sokolowski, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One California Plaza
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 617-1200

               - and -

          Michael C. Spencer, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
                     (800) 320-5081

               - and -

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          8648 Wilshire Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444

               - and -

          Kevin T. Moore, Esq.
          6111 Peachtree Dunwoody Rd.
          Building C, Suite 20
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (770) 396-3622

               - and -

          William A. Pannell, Esq.
          WILLIAM A. PANNELL, P.C.
          3460 Kingsboro Rd. NE
          Townhouse Five
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 353-2283

Defendant-Appellants NBC Universal, Inc. et al. are represented

          Chad S. Hummel, Esq.
          Brad W. Seiling, Esq.
          Joanna S. McCallum, Esq.
          11355 W. Olympic Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-4000

Defendant-Appellant Endemol USA, Inc. is represented by:

          Patricia L. Glaser, Esq.
          10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553-3000

Defendant-Appellants Verisign, Inc. and m-Qube, Inc. are
represented by:

          Ronald L. Johnston, Esq.
          Angel L. Tang, Esq.
          777 South Figueroa St., 44th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA  90017-5844
          Telephone: (213) 243-4000

TOMOTHERAPY INC: Accused in Wisc. Suit of Misleading Shareholders
Courthouse News Service reports that directors inflated
TomoTherapy's share price through false and misleading statements
about its only product, and the company lost $213 in market value
in a single day when the facts came out, shareholders claim in
Dane County Court, Madison, Wisc.

A copy of the Complaint in Huh v. TomoTherapy Incorporated, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-3595 (Wisc. Cir. Ct., Dane Cty.), is available


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas P. Dehler, Esq.
          111 E. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 1750
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 226-9900
          E-mail: ddehler@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Robert B. Weiser, Esq.
          Brett D. Stecker, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Ciarlanto, Esq.
          121 N. Wayne Ave., Suite 100
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 225-2677

WELLS FARGO: District Judge Grills Bank's Trial Witnesses
Dan Levine at The Recorder reports that U.S. District Judge
William Alsup, during closing arguments Friday, asked much tougher
questions of Covington & Burling partner Sonya Winner, Esq., who
represents Wells Fargo, than of class counsel Richard Heimann,
Esq., from Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.

Wells Fargo is fighting allegations that it improperly maximized
its customers' overdraft fees.  Wells Fargo produced trial
witnesses to say the bank wasn't purely motivated by profit.

Instead of posting each debit transaction chronologically,
plaintiffs say the bank deducted customers' largest charges first,
thus drawing down their available balances much more rapidly.
Once the money was gone, each subsequent debit would incur its own
overdraft fee.

A bench trial took place this past spring, followed by a break.
In his closing, Mr. Heimann presented Wells Fargo memos from the
time it formulated the controversial overdraft policy.  In them,
bank employees bemoan a drop in overdrafts and the resulting
revenue losses.

When bank witnesses took the stand, they offered different
justifications for the high fees -- like trying to deter customers
from maxing out their accounts. "The plaintiffs' position is
that's just poppycock," Mr. Heimann said.

Judge Alsup picked up that thread when Ms. Winner came to the
podium.  No contemporaneous documents backed up Wells Fargo's
explanations, he said.  Rather, Judge Alsup said, there was a
clear revenue motive.

"That's what the documents said," Judge Alsup said.

"You're honor, that's not what the documents said," Ms. Winner

"I saw it for myself! I don't understand how you can say that,"
Judge Alsup replied.

At one point, Mr. Heimann told Judge Alsup that he really didn't
need to discuss the demeanor of Wells Fargo's witnesses.  Then,
Mr. Heimann took a moment to do exactly that, describing them as
nonresponsive on cross-examination.

"But I needn't really go there," said Mr. Heimann, whose
rhetorical tactic prompted a smirk from one Covington lawyer.

Ms. Winner noted that banks also routinely process deposits ahead
of debits, a procedure inconsistent with an institution that wants
to gouge customers at all costs.  But Mr. Heimann called that a
red herring, adding that it was not necessary for the plaintiffs
to prove that the bank took advantage of every possible device to
charge customers.

Plaintiffs' damages estimates range from $69 million to $351
million.  The trial holds added significance because of a much
larger multidistrict class action against multiple banks in

Federal banking laws pre-empt the state law claims at issue in the
case, Ms. Winner said.  And the formulation of the overdraft
policy cited by plaintiffs pre-dated the class period, she said,
which runs from 2004 to 2008.

"The plaintiffs don't want to talk about the class period because
they have nothing to say about it," Ms. Winner said.

But Judge Alsup turned to the bank's disclosure of its overdraft
policy, which was contained in small print, 27 pages into a
brochure.  He asked whether it should have been disclosed in a way
that an "ordinary mortal" could pick up on.

"You can't put everything on page one," Ms. Winner said, because
another lawsuit would complain why their grievance wasn't
disclosed first.  The point, Ms. Winner said, is that the language
was included.

In rebuttal, Mr. Heimann responded that the disclosure was still
misleading.  Wells Fargo netted an average of $110 million a year
in revenue as a result of overdrafts, he said, the vast majority
from its poorest customers.

"Those are the real victims of this," he said.

For her part, Ms. Winner tried to downplay emotion and keep
Alsup's focus on whether the bank made money improperly.  "It is
not illegal in California to make money," she told him.

Judge Alsup said he would try to rule within the next two weeks.

The report also notes the trial holds added significance because
of a much larger multidistrict class action against multiple banks
in Florida.

WYETH: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Suit in N.J.
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, said a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of Wyeth (NYSE: WYE) during the period between May 21, 2007
and July 29, 2008, inclusive.

No class has yet been certified.  Members of the Class will be
represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead
plaintiff.  If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the
Class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff no later than
August 30, 2010 and be selected by the Court.  The lead plaintiff
will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions
including whether to accept a settlement and how much of a
settlement to accept for the Class in the action.  The lead
plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the
largest loss from investment in the Company during the Class
Period. You are not required to have sold your shares to seek
damages or to serve as a Lead Plaintiff.  You may contact Brower
Piven -- through hoffman@browerpiven.com or 410/415-6616 -- to
answer any questions you may have in that regard.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company, during
the Class Period, concealing material information and making false
and misleading statements relating to Wyeth's most important
pipeline drug, bapineuzumab, also known as AAB-001 (hereafter, "B-
Mab"), including by improperly touting the success of clinical
trial results relating to the safety and efficacy of B-Mab -- a
potential billion-dollar-a-year Alzheimer's drug -- even though
they had seen the preliminary results, and thus had knowledge that
the trial was an abject failure, missing all clinical endpoints
and demonstrating serious safety concerns. According to the
complaint, when the full truth about the B-Mab clinical trial was
revealed by the Company on July 29, 2008, the value of Wyeth
shares declined significantly.

If you have suffered a net loss for all transactions in Wyeth
common stock during the Class Period, you may obtain additional
information about this lawsuit and your ability to become a lead
plaintiff by contacting:

     1925 Old Valley Road
     Stevenson, Maryland 21153
     Telephone: (410) 415-6616
     E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com/

Attorneys at Brower Piven -- http://www.browerpiven.com-- have
combined experience litigating securities and class action cases
of over 40 years.  If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain
Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you
may retain other counsel of your choice.  You need take no action
at this time to be a member of the class.

* News Agency Probe Says Georgians Pay $53-Mil. More for Hot Gas
WSB-TV reports that a Channel 2 Action News consumer investigation
found that Georgians are paying roughly $53 million more for gas
during the hot summer months -- because the gas is too warm.
Industry experts said warm gas saps the fuel's energy and a
driver's mileage, forcing motorists to fill up more often.  A
handful of Georgians are suing several gasoline retailers in a
class action lawsuit.

WSB-TV relates Channel 2 consumer investigator Jim Strickland
pumped gas at Love's Truck Stop, a defendant, then immediately
measured the temperature.  It read very close to 88 degrees.  He
also tested five more gas retailers selling different brands in
five metro Atlanta counties.  The average temperature read at 85
degrees.  The industry standard is 60 degrees.  WSB-TV reports
industry experts said gas at 85 degrees is thinned to the point
that drivers buy 2.2 ounces worth of decreased energy in every

"[Mr.] Strickland found figures from the federal government
showing that Georgia burns an average of 1.17 billion gallons of
gas between the months of June and August.  He did the math and
took away 2.2 ounces each. The result is that Georgia drivers are
shortened more than 20 million gallons of gas.  At $2.60 per
gallon, that's $53 million lost just in a Georgia summer,"
according to WSB-TV.

"We're getting ripped off," the report quotes Rick DiGiorgio,
Esq., an attorney in the class action lawsuit, as saying.  "Most
people absolutely do not know it."  He may be reached at:

     G. Richard DiGiorgio, Esq.
     2131 Magnolia Avenue
     Birmingham, Alabama  35205
     Telephone: (205) 328-2200
     Telecopier: (205) 324-7896

According to WSB-TV, officials with one retailer, Costco, said
they want to avoid the class action hassles.  They plan to install
temperature compensators whenever they upgrade their pumps.  They
said that should be done in five years.


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  * * *