/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100720.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 20, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 141


AMEDISYS INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
AMEDISYS INC: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action
APPLE INC: Kaplan Fox Investigates Possible Securities Laws
BAJA INC: Recalls 308,000 Baja Motorsports Mini Bikes and Go-Carts
BP PLC: Oil Spill Suits Surpass 300; Lawyers Seek Consolidation

CANADIAN SOLAR: Application for Lead Plaintiff Until August 2
CHEVRON: 2nd Cir. Directs Turn Over of Portions of Film Materials
COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: Misleading Offering Docs Detailed in Lawsuit
CVS PHARMACIES: Judge Directs Class Notice in Airborne Drug Case
DE BEERS: 3rd Cir. Rejects $295MM Settlement in Antitrust Suit

EKSPORTFINANS ASA: Sued for Selling Derivative Bonds to Elders
H&R BLOCK: Gives New Evidence to Counter Plaintiffs' New Theories
KRISPY KREME: Accused in Fla. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
LHC GROUP: Kaplan Fox Probes Possible Securities Laws Violations
MARRIOTT INT'L: App. Ct. Affirms $108MM Lawyer Fees in Knik Case

NASSAU: Ex-Social Services Workers Sue for Comp Time Payment
NESTLE SA: May Face Suit Over Product's Health Benefit Claims
PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES: Minority Shareholders Sue Over Buyout
QUEBEC GAS CARTEL: Competition Bureau Files Criminal Charges
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Enters Into Mediation, Skips 2nd Jury Trial

STI PREPAID: N.J. Court Gives Tentative OK to $8-Mil. Settlement
T-MOBILE: To Pay $55 Million to Settle Suit Over Back Taxes
TARGET DATE FUNDS: Kaplan Fox Probes Securities Laws Violations
TOTS IN MIND: Recalls 20,085 Playard Tents Plus Cabana Kits


AMEDISYS INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
Bernstein Liebhard LLP said on July 15, 2010, a class action has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of Amedisys, Inc.,
common stock during the period of April 30, 2008 and June 30,
2010, inclusive.  Defendants are Amedisys and certain of its
officers and executives.

The complaint charges Amedisys and certain of its officers and
executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Amedisys is a provider of home health services to the chronic, co-
morbid, aging American population. The Company operates in two
segments: home health and hospice segments.  The Complaint alleges
that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that the Company's reported sales and earnings growth were
materially impacted by a scheme whereby the Company intentionally
increased the number of in-home therapy visits to patients for the
purpose of triggering higher reimbursement rates under the
Medicare home health prospective payment system, as those excess
visits were not always medically necessary; (2) that the Company's
reported sales and earnings were inflated by said scheme and
subject to recoupment by Medicare; (3) that the Company was in
material violation of its Code of Ethical Business Conduct and
compliance due to the scheme to inflate Medicare revenues; and (4)
based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a basis for their
positive statements about the Company, its prospects and growth.

On April 27, 2010, The Wall Street Journal reported that Amedisys
has been taking advantage of the Medicare reimbursement system by
increasing the number of in-home therapy visits in order to
trigger additional reimbursements.  As reported in the article,
according to a former Amedisys nurse, the excess visits that
triggered additional reimbursements were "not always medically
necessary."  In the wake of this revelation, Amedisys common stock
fell $3.98 per share or 6.5%.

On May 13, 2010, the WSJ did a follow up article where it reported
that the Senate Finance Committee had started an investigation
into the billing and operating practices of Amedisys.  In an SFC
letter dated May 12, 2010 to Amedisys, the SFC cited the findings
of the WSJ article and requested the Company to produce documents
dating as far back as 2006, concerning data on therapy visits,
lists of physicians with the highest patient referrals to the
Company, and copies of all marketing materials.  In the wake of
this additional revelation, Amedisys common stock fell nearly 8%
or $4.48 per share.

On June 30, 2010, Amedisys announced that it had received notice
of a formal investigation from the Securities and Exchange
Commission pertaining to the Company, and received a subpoena for
documents relating to matters under review by the SFC. As a
result, on July 1, 2010, the price of Amedisys stock declined from
a close on June 30, 2010 of $43.98 per share, to close at $39.34
per share, a decline of $4.64 per share or approximately 11%, on
higher than usual volume.

The allegations are further corroborated by Amedisys' announcement
on July 13, 2010 that its second quarter earnings would drop
substantially, in part, due to nonrecurring costs of 17 cents a
share connected with the investigations.  As a result, Amedisys
stock fell another 25% on July 13, 2010.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Amedisys
during the Class Period.  If you purchased or otherwise acquired
Amedisys stock during the Class Period, and either lost money on
the transaction or still hold the stock, you may wish to join in
the action to serve as lead plaintiff.  In order to do so, you
must meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and
file appropriate papers no later than August 9, 2010.

A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to
be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

Bernstein Liebhard has pursued hundreds of securities and consumer
cases and recovered almost $3 billion for its clients.  It has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" in
each of the last seven years.

You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court
for the United States District Court for the Middle District of

The firm may be reached at:

     U. Seth Ottensoser, Esq.
     Joseph R. Seidman, Jr., Esq.
     10 East 40th Street
     New York, New York 10016
     Telephone: (877) 779-1414 (toll free)
                (212) 779-1414
     Facsimile: (212) 779-3218
     E-mail: ottensoser@bernlieb.com

AMEDISYS INC: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has filed a class action suit against
Amedisys, Inc., William F. Borne, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors, and Dale E.
Redman, the Company's Chief Financial Officer that alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of
purchasers of Amedisys common stock during the period between
April 30, 2008 and June 30, 2010, inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana and has been assigned docket No.
3:10-cv-00464-BAJ-DLD.  A copy of the complaint may be obtained
from Kaplan Fox or the Court.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
reported "record" financial results, but failed to disclose (1)
that the Company improperly increased the number of in-home
therapy visits to patients for the purpose of triggering higher
reimbursement rates under the Medicare home health prospective
payment system; (2) as a result of the Company's improper conduct,
its reported sales and earnings were materially inflated; (3) and
based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a basis for their
positive statements about the Company, its prospects and growth.

The Complaint further alleges that on April 26, 2010, The Wall
Street Journal reported that an analysis by the WSJ of Medicare
payments to home health-care companies in recent years raised
"questions about whether some companies -- including the sector's
largest, Amedisys, Inc. are taking advantage of the Medicare
reimbursement system.  The results show that the number of in-home
therapy visits tracks Medicare financial incentives."  The
Complaint alleges that on April 27, 2010, the price of Amedisys
stock declined $3.98 per share or 6.5% on heavier than usual
volume, to close at $56.52 per share.

The Complaint also alleges that on May 13, 2010 the WSJ reported
that the U.S. Senate Finance Committee had started an
investigation into the billing and operating practices of Amedisys
and, in a Committee letter dated May 12, 2010 to Amedisys, the
Committee referenced the April 26, 2010 WSJ Article and requested
that the Company produce documents dating as far back as 2006,
concerning data on therapy visits, lists of physicians with the
highest patient referrals to the Company, and copies of all
marketing materials.  The Complaint alleges that after these
disclosures, the price of Amedisys stock declined 8% or $4.48 per
share on heavier than usual volume, to close at $51.76 per share.

Finally, the Complaint alleges that on June 30, 2010, after the
close of trading, Amedisys issued a press release that disclosed
the Company was under formal investigation by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission and, as a result, on July 1, 2010, the
price of Amedisys shares declined from a close on June 30, 2010 of
$43.98 per share, to close at $39.34 per share, a decline of $4.64
per share or approximately 11%, on higher than usual volume.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than August 9, 2010 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
Class. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to
share in any possible recovery.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class and is
represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP. Our firm, with offices
in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New Jersey,
has many years of experience in prosecuting investor class actions
and actions involving financial fraud.

For more information about Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, or to
review a copy of the complaint filed in this action, you may visit
our Web site http://www.kaplanfox.com/

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, please e-mail us or contact:

     Joel B. Strauss, Esq.
     Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
     850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
     New York, New York 10022
     Telephone: (800) 290-1952
                (212) 687-1980
     Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
     E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

          - and -

     Laurence D. King, Esq.
     350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
     San Francisco, California 94104
     Telephone: (415) 772-4700
     Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
     E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com

APPLE INC: Kaplan Fox Investigates Possible Securities Laws
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has been investigating Apple Inc.
(NASDAQ: APPL) for potential violations of the federal securities
laws.  Investors who purchased Company securities between June 7,
2010 and July 15, 2010 may be affected.

On June 7, 2010, Apple's CEO Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone4 to
the market at the Company's annual Worldwide Developers
Conference.  Jobs discussed the features of the new phone,
including changes to its antenna:

"People have asked, 'What's this?' Some have even said, 'This
doesn't seem like Apple.' What are these lines in this beautiful
stainless steel band? Well, it turns out there's not just one of
them, there's three of them. And they are part of the entire
structure of this phone. That stainless steel band that runs
around is the primary structural element of the phone, and there
are these three slits in it.  It turns out this is part of some
brilliant engineering, which actually uses the stainless steel
band as part of the antenna system.  And so, one piece is
Bluetooth, wifi, and GPS, and the other is UMTS and GSM. So it's
got these integrated antennas right in the structure of the phone.
It's never been done before and it's really cool engineering."

After the June 7, 2010 conference, Apple stock increased, reaching
an all-time high of approximately $274 per share on June 18, 2010
in anticipation of the Company's June 24 launch of the iPhone4.
But, shortly after the launch, investors began to learn about
material defects in the design of the iPhone 4.  Reportedly, Jobs
knew about the design defect, but liked the new design so much
that he ignored a warning from engineers that the new design could
result in dropped phone calls.  On July 15, 2010, the Wall Street
Journal reported, in part, the following:

"Steve Jobs's insistence on strict control of Apple Inc.'s
product-design process appears to have backfired with his new
iPhone 4, leading the company to overrule internal concerns about
antenna reception and to deny carriers adequate time to test the
phone before selling it."

"Apple's iPhone 4 has been dogged by reports of antenna-reception
problems since its launch last month. Apple engineers were aware
of the risks associated with the new antenna design as early as a
year ago, but Mr. Jobs liked the design it so much that Apple went
ahead with its development, said a person familiar with the

"Apple's iPhone 4 has been dogged by reports of antenna-reception
problems since its launch last month.

"The electronics giant kept such a shroud of secrecy over the
iPhone 4's development that the device didn't get the kind of
real-world testing that would have exposed such problems in phones
by other manufacturers, said people familiar with the matter.

"Apple gave its carrier partners limited time to test the iPhone 4
before its June 24 launch and gave them significantly fewer
devices to test than other handset makers, people familiar with
the matter said . . . ."

Finally, on July 16, 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported Apple
"admitted the phone drops more calls than the previous version,
and said it would give away protective cases as a remedy." On July
16, 2010, Apple shares closed at $249.90 per share.

If you purchased Apple publicly traded securities between June 7,
2010 and July 15, 2010 and would like to discuss our
investigation, please e-mail us at jcampisi@kaplanfox.com or

     Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
     Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
     Pamela A. Mayer, Esq.
     850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
     New York, New York 10022
     Telephone: (800) 290-1952
                (212) 687-1980
     Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
     E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com

          - and -

     Laurence D. King, Esq.
     350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
     San Francisco, California  94104
     Telephone: (415) 772-4700
     Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
     E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com

BAJA INC: Recalls 308,000 Baja Motorsports Mini Bikes and Go-Carts
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Baja Inc., d/b/a Baja Motorsports, of Phoenix, Ariz., announced a
voluntary recall of about 308,000 Baja Motorsports Mini Bikes and
Go-Carts.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The gas cap can leak or detach from the fuel tank on the recalled
mini bikes and go-carts, posing a fire and burn hazard to
consumers. In addition, the throttle can stick due to an
improperly positioned fuel line and throttle cable, posing a
sudden acceleration hazard to consumers.

The firm has received at least 9 reports of the gas caps leaking
and detaching, including one report of a serious burn injury to a
child.  The firm has also received 25 reports of stuck throttles
possibly due to the fuel line and throttle cable being improperly
attached with injuries to the face and other parts of the body

This recall involved Baja Motorsports mini bikes with model
numbers beginning with HT65, MB165, WR65, MB196, DB30, WR90 and
DR90 and go-carts with model numbers BB65, SD65, DN65 and TR65.
The model number is located on the mini bikes' fenders and/or
decorative fuel tank and on the go-carts' roll cage.  They both
have black plastic gas caps.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
various mini bike and go-cart retailers nationwide from November
2004 through June, 2010 for between $200 and $2000.  They were
also available from the following Web sites:


Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mini bikes
and go-carts and contact Baja Motorsports for a free replacement
gas cap and to schedule a free repair of the fuel line and
throttle cable.  For additional information, contact Baja
Motorsports toll-free at (888) 863-2252 between 10:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.bajamotorsports.net/

BP PLC: Oil Spill Suits Surpass 300; Lawyers Seek Consolidation
According to court records compiled by Bloomberg, lawsuits against
BP Plc have surpassed 300.  The lawsuits seek billions of dollars
in potential claims as damage from the worst oil spill in U.S.
history ripples through the nation's Gulf Coast economy.

Bloomberg News reports that the lawsuits include:

     -- a regional shopping mall in southern Louisiana suing
        July 12 in New Orleans federal court over the loss of

     -- a parish sheriff in New Orleans suing July 9 to recover
        lost business tax revenue,

     -- growing numbers of BP employees and investors lodging
        claims over alleged corporate mismanagement that caused
        BP's share price to fall by half, and

     -- scores of proposed class actions filed by commercial
        fishing companies, beach-front property owners, restaurant
        owners and environmentalists claiming harm from the
        drifting oil.

Legal experts, according to Bloomberg, said the number of suits
will continue to rise after the damaged well has stopped gushing

"There are more than 100,000 individual damage claims filed in the
BP claims process, so we'll probably see a multiple of that number
of court cases before it's all said and done," Houston attorney
Brent Coon, Esq., told Bloomberg News in a telephone interview.
Mr. Coon said he's filed "very few" lawsuits so far on behalf of
the 100 spill-related clients he represents, because he's waiting
to see whether London-based BP pays claims from the $20 billion
fund the company created for that purpose.

Michael Salt, a spokesman for BP, declined to comment.

According to Bloomberg, New Orleans lawyer Stephen Herman, Esq.,
said the lawsuit for lost tax revenue filed July 12 by the Tensas
Parish, Louisiana, sheriff may be the first of a new phase of
lawsuits.  Such claims by state and local governments seek money
to cover budget shortfalls caused by the spill's impact on local
businesses.  Mr. Herman told the New Orleans City Council in late
June that claims for lost municipal tax revenues are specifically
covered by the federal law governing BP's oil spill claims-payment

"It seems to all be spelled out in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990,
but so far BP is not committed to paying lost tax revenues," Mr.
Herman told Bloomberg in a phone interview.  Bloomberg notes the
1990 law states that "damages equal to the net loss of taxes,
royalties, rents, fees or net profit shares" can be recovered by
the U.S., states or a "political subdivision."

According to Bloomberg, estimates of BP's ultimate payout over the
spill are rising along with the number of lawsuits.  Analysts in
May estimated costs of judgments and claims wouldn't exceed $20
billion.  A June 2 Credit Suisse report, according to Bloomberg,
assessed BP's liabilities at $37 billion in cleanup and potential
litigation expenses.  Three weeks later, oil analyst Fadel Gheit,
at Oppenheimer & Co., put the financial hit from the Deepwater
Horizon rig disaster as high as $60 billion.

                     Multi-District Litigation

Bloomberg also reports that lawyers will ask a panel of federal
judges in Boise, Idaho, on July 29 to consolidate the cases into
two multidistrict litigations to streamline pretrial rulings,
evidence-gathering and organization:

     -- One MDL would cover economic loss and environmental damage
        claims in a dozen states.  Most of these cases also name
        as defendants Transocean Ltd., Halliburton Energy
        Services, Cameron International Corp. and Anadarko
        Petroleum, all of whom allegedly played a role in the
        spill.  BP has asked the Boise panel to consolidate the
        cases in federal court in Houston, while attorneys for
        multiple plaintiffs are seeking assignment to New Orleans.

     -- The other MDL will cover lawsuits by investors in BP U.S.
        shares who claim the company's officers failed to disclose
        safety problems, artificially inflating stock value, or
        that management failures led to the spill.

Bloomberg, however, reports that Thomas Ajamie, Esq., in Houston,
said the MDL might not cover the growing number of lawsuits by
BP's U.S. workers claiming the company breached its duty to them
in managing the employee savings plan.  The lawsuits claim BP and
retirement savings plan managers knew or should have know that
investing in the oil company was imprudent.

Bloomberg relates Mr. Ajamie filed a class action in federal court
in Chicago July 7 for U.S. BP employees.  So far, at least six of
these cases have been filed, five of them in Chicago, two last
week.  The lawsuits are in Chicago because the BP plan is
administered there, Mr. Ajamie said.  Plaintiffs lawyers involved
should be able to develop the cases without an MDL, Mr. Ajamie

According to Bloomberg, lawyers in these cases claim BP's value
has been hurt not only by the spill but also by funds BP must pay
to clean up the spill and compensate victims.

"As BP's $20 billion fund reduces the damages for everyone else in
this courtroom, it increases the damage to the shareholders,"
Michael Swick, Esq., a lawyer representing BP investors said last
month in a New Orleans court hearing over spill claims, according
to Bloomberg.

Bloomberg also notes compensation sought by private parties may be
dwarfed by claims by governments, including the U.S. and the Gulf
states, over damage to natural resources.  The Oil Pollution Act
of 1990 requires those responsible for oil spills to restore a
resource to its pre-incident condition, or provide an equivalent
to offset the loss, such as to wildlife habitat, breeding stocks
and clean water.  The U.S. and state governments began assessing
possible damage by early May to determine the type and amount of
restoration needed, according to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.

"If the standard Louisiana sets for cleaning up the spill is to go
wipe the oil off of every blade of grass in every marsh and
recreate every estuary, that's going to take more than the value
of BP to do that," Bloomberg quotes Mr. Coon as saying. "It will
take umpteen billions of dollars to recreate the estuaries, maybe
trillions of dollars."

CANADIAN SOLAR: Application for Lead Plaintiff Until August 2
Hagens Berman said CSIQ investors have about two weeks left to
move for lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit against
Canadian Solar, Inc. in California, where the company's sole U.S.
operations exist.  The lawsuit identified new claims and new
classes based on an independent investigation undertaken by the
law firm.

The complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California last week, alleged Canadian Solar
overstated its revenues and concealed necessary information about
the company's business operations ahead of the $100 million plus
October 2009 offering of common stock.  Defendants include
Canadian Solar senior officers, Arthur Chien and Shawn Qu, who
allegedly authorized recorded revenues from fictitious sales
transactions and failed to properly account for product returns in
2009, in the registration statements, prospectus and other
documents.  As a result, the company sold CSIQ shares to investors
at inflated prices.

The new complaint -- which can be found at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/canadian-solar-- seeks to represent three
classes of investors who purchased CSIQ shares during the revised
Class Period from October 13, 2009 to June 1, 2010.  The three
classes of investors include:

     -- A class for all investors who acquired CSIQ shares
traceable to the company's false and misleading October 2009
registration statement form (strict liability);

     -- A class for all investors who acquired CSIQ shares
traceable to the company's false and misleading October 2009
prospectus (negligence); and

     -- A class of all investors who purchased CSIQ shares on or
after October 13, 2009 (fraud).

Other complaints have identified the class period of May 26, 2010
and June 1, 2010 for fraud claims.  Investors who fall within one
of these classes may be eligible to participate in the class-
action lawsuit as a lead plaintiff.  To serve as a lead plaintiff
in this class-action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later
than August 2, 2010.  Any investor who purchased CSIQ shares
during the Class Period may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through the counsel of their choice.  Investors also may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

If you have losses greater than $100,000 from purchases in these
periods or would like to discuss your legal rights and move to be
a lead plaintiff, you may contact, without obligation or cost to

     Reed Kathrein, Esq.
     Managing Partner
     715 Hearst Ave., Ste. 202
     Berkeley, CA 94710
     Telephone: (510) 725-3000
     E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com

Hagens Berman also welcomes any information you may have that
would advance the investigation.

On the Net: http://www.hbsslaw.com/

Hagens Berman LLP is a shareholder-rights class-action law firm
with offices in San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Los
Angeles, and Phoenix. Since 1993, HBSS continues to successfully
fight for investor rights in large, complex litigation.

CHEVRON: 2nd Cir. Directs Turn Over of Portions of Film Materials
Ted Johnson, writing for Variety, reports that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York has ordered film director
Joe Berlinger to turn over more than 600 hours of material from
'Crude,' his documentary about oil pollution in Ecuador.  The
judges, however, have greatly limited the amount of footage
Chevron will be entitled to obtain and placed restrictions on the
way it can be used.

Mr. Berlinger has been fighting Chevron's request that he turn
over 600 hours of material, representing all the outtakes from his
2009 project.  In May, U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan
ruled that he had to turn over all of the footage, but Mr.
Berlinger appealed, and the 2nd Circuit heard his case Wednesday.

Chevron has argued the material is needed in its legal battle in
Ecuador against a class action of plaintiffs, who claim the oil
giant bears responsibility for environmental damage and health
woes from years of drilling in the region.  Chevron claims the
footage could contain evidence of unethical conduct among the
class-action plaintiffs' lawyers as well as questionable activity
among government officials.

The three-member appellate panel said Thursday that Mr. Berlinger
must turn over all footage "that does not appear in publicly
released versions of 'Crude,'" which shows the counsel for the
class action plaintiffs in the Ecuadoran litigation, private or
court-appointed experts in those proceedings or current or former
officials of the country's government.

Although it had been likely that Mr. Berlinger would have to turn
over some material, given the precedent set by the 2nd Circuit's
1999 decision in Gonzales vs. NBC, the documentary community also
had been wary of how the released material would be used.  The
appellate court said the material could only be used for
"litigation, arbitration or submission to official bodies, local
or international."  Chevron also must pay "reasonable expenses"
that Mr. Berlinger bears in duplicating the footage.

Via e-mail, Mr. Berlinger said that he wanted to reserve his full
analysis of the decision until the appellate panel delivers an
opinion explaining its rationale.

"However, I can say that we are extremely pleased with [the]
results," he said.  "The appeals court has substantially limited
Judge Kaplan's overbroad order, which was the main thrust of our
appeal.  Furthermore, the court has expressly prohibited Chevron
from using any footage we do turn over in their public relations
campaigns, a goal that was extremely important to me."

He added that the appeals court "affirmed that documentary
filmmakers are no different than any other journalists deserving
First Amendment protection."

Chevron spokesman Kent Robertson said that they were "pleased and
eager to move forward with this matter."

"We have already seen instances of collusion and fraud on the part
of plaintiffs' lawyers in portions of Crude that have been
publicly released.  We are confident that review of the outtakes
will reveal additional instances of misconduct."

Michael C. Donaldson, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on
behalf of nearly two dozen organizations and individuals in
support of Berlinger, said that "quantitatively, it was a partial
victory for both sides."  Among other things, he said, Mr.
Berlinger does not have to turn over footage in which he talked
privately with the class action plaintiffs, their friends and
neighbors. "That is exactly the footage that Berlinger was most
interested in protecting," Mr. Donaldson said.

COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: Misleading Offering Docs Detailed in Lawsuit
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC filed an Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint last week in its landmark litigation
against Countrywide Financial Corporation and other underwriter
defendants who were prominently involved in the failure of
mortgage-backed securities over the last several years.

Countrywide, since acquired by Bank of America, was one of the
largest and most controversial institutions involved in mortgage-
backed securities. Other defendants in the case, aside from
Countrywide, several of its former top executives, and Bank of
America, include 16 underwriters of more than $350 billion in
Countrywide securities, among them J.P. Morgan, Deutsche Bank,
Bear Stearns, UBS, Morgan Stanley, Edward Jones, Citigroup,
Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse.

Cohen Milstein is Lead Counsel for the Class and Counsel for the
Lead Plaintiff, the Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System, as
well as the Oregon Public Employees' Retirement System and Orange
County Employees' Retirement System. The General Board of Pension
and Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church is also named
as a plaintiff in the litigation.

"Amidst all this high finance, it's too easy to lose sight of the
fact that pension funds invested heavily in these mortgage-backed
securities and so retirees are the real victims here," commented
Steve Toll, Managing Partner at Cohen Milstein and co-chair of its
Securities Fraud/Investor Protection practice group.

In the amended complaint, the Plaintiffs further buttress their
allegation that the defendants published false and misleading
offering documents, including registration statements,
prospectuses, and prospectus supplements. Specifically, these
documents misrepresented or failed to disclose that underwriting
guidelines for the mortgages backing the securities had been
systematically disregarded.

According to the lawsuit, from 2005 through 2007 Countrywide was
the nation's largest residential mortgage lender, originating in
excess of $850 billion in home loans throughout the United States
in 2005 and 2006 alone. Countrywide's ability to originate
residential mortgages on such a massive scale was facilitated, in
large part, by its ability to rapidly package or securitize those
loans and then, through the activities of the underwriter
defendants, sell them to investors as purportedly investment grade
mortgage-backed securities.

In order to generate a steady flow of mortgage loans to sustain
this mass production of mortgage-backed securities, Countrywide
routinely issued loans to borrowers who otherwise would never have
qualified for them -- and indeed, did not qualify for the loans
they received -- through, for example, "low doc" and "no doc" loan
programs, often with adjustable interest rates that had been
designed for borrowers with higher incomes and better credit.

Upon pooling these mortgages and issuing them as MBS certificates,
over 92% received the very highest, investment-grade ratings from
rating agencies; ultimately, however, 87% were downgraded to junk.
Tellingly, one year after the date of the certificate offerings,
delinquency and default rates on the underlying mortgages had
increased 2,525% from issuance. In explaining such an
unprecedented collapse in ratings on these certificates  in 2008
and 2009, the rating agencies noted that they were forced to
change their models because of previously undisclosed and
systematic "aggressive underwriting" practices used to originate
the mortgage loan collateral. Along with the exponential increases
in delinquency and default rates of the underlying mortgages and
the collapse of the certificates' ratings, the value of the
certificates plummeted.

Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the Defendants' actions
violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, legislation, still on the books, originally enacted in
response to similar abuses that led to the Great Depression.

The Countrywide case is pending before Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Cohen Milstein has been named lead or co-lead counsel by courts in
eight of the most significant mortgage-backed securities cases
currently being litigated, including Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns
and Washington Mutual as well as Countrywide.

Docket No. 2:10-cv-00302

CVS PHARMACIES: Judge Directs Class Notice in Airborne Drug Case
Amelia Flood at The Madison/St. Clair Record reports that after
several months of inaction, a class action case over the
effectiveness of an immune system supplement is moving ahead.  St.
Clair County Circuit Judge Lloyd Cueto on July 1 ordered plaintiff
Iean Finley and defendant CVS Pharmacies Inc. to send in their
recommendations for class notice before an August hearing.

The order, entered after a case management conference, was the
first action in the 2008 suit since Judge Cueto certified the
class in January.

Mr. Finley is suing CVS claiming its generic form of the immune
system supplement "Airborne" does not work.  The suit is one of a
series filed by the same team of lawyers against CVS, Target and
other retailers two years ago.  The suits allege similar claims
against the retailers over their forms of Airborne and several are
pending in St. Clair County courtrooms to date.  Mr. Finley's suit
alleges CVS violated Illinois' consumer fraud law and was unjustly
enriched by selling a drug that does not work.  The suit seeks
damages of not more than $75,000 per class member, costs and
attorneys' fees.

According to Judge Cueto's order, the plaintiff is to submit the
proposed class notice by July 22.  The defendants will then have
until Aug. 6 to submit theirs.

A hearing on the matter will be held at 9 a.m. on Aug 19.

Kevin Hoerner, Brian Kreisler, Richard Burke and Paul Weiss
represent Mr. Finley and the class.  They also helm the other
suits pending in St. Clair County over the immune supplements.

Messrs. Hoerner and Brian Kreisler may be reached at:

     Kevin T. Hoerner, Esq.
     Brian T. Kreisler, Esq.
     5111 W. Main St.
     Belleville, Illinois
     5111 West Main Street
     Belleville, Illinois 62226
     Telephone: (618) 235-0020
                (618) 271-1600
     Facsimile: (618) 235-8558

CVS is represented by Robert Bassett, David Smith and others.

The case is St. Clair case number 08-L-616.

DE BEERS: 3rd Cir. Rejects $295MM Settlement in Antitrust Suit
Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected a $295
million class-action settlement between De Beers and diamond
buyers who complained of decades-long antitrust violations.

The world's top diamond producer reached the agreement in 2005
after pleading guilty a year before to price-fixing charges.  The
settlement was certified by the U.S. District Court in New Jersey.

But a handful of diamond buyers objected to the deal and sued.

The Philadelphia-based circuit determined that their claims were
too varied to be certified as a class.

"Plaintiffs seek to minimize these legal disparities by
characterizing them as little more than impediments to litigation
that would make trial management difficult but that may safely be
ignored for settlement purposes," Judge Kent Jordan wrote for the
three-judge panel.

"That argument places management issues above the more basic
question of substantive law.  It is akin to suggesting that a
really good cook, by means of superior kitchen management, can
make a cake out of nothing."

A copy of the Opinion in Sullivan, et al. v. DB Investments, Inc.,
et al., Nos. 08-2784/2785/2798/2799/2818/2819/2831/2881 (3rd
Cir.), is available at:


Objector-Appellant Susan M. Quinn is represented by:

          Howard J. Bashman, Esq.
          2300 Computer Ave., Suite G-22
          Willow Grove, PA 19090

               - and -

          George M. Plews, Esq.
          Christopher J. Braun, Esq.
          1346 N. Delaware St.
          Indianapolis, IN 46202

Plaintiffs-Appellees Arrigotti Fine Jewelry Shawn Sullivan and
James Walnum are represented by:

          Howard B. Becker, Esq.
          Steven A. Katz, Esq.
          505 N. 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101

               - and -

          Craig C. Corbitt, Esq.
          44 Montgomery St., Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104

               - and -

          Susan G. Kupfer, Esq.
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 760
          San Francisco, CA 94111

               - and -

         John A. Maher, Esq.
         450 Springfield Ave.
         Summit, NJ 07901

              - and -

          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          425 California St., Suite 2100
          San Francisco, CA 94104

               - and -

          William Bernstein, Esq.
          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          275 Battery St., 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111

               - and -

          Joseph D. Cooper, Esq.
          Tracy R. Kirkham, Esq.
          COOPER & KIRKHAM
          357 Tehama St., 2nd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94103

Defendant-Appellee DeBeers SA is represented by:

          Jessica Biggio, Esq.
          Francis Ciani-Dausch, Esq.
          Tara S. Emory, Esq.
          Matthew P. Hendrickson, Esq.
          4 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036

               - and -

          Mark J. Sagat, Esq.
          Steven C. Sunshine, Esq.
          1440 New York Ave., N.W., Room 08-08
          Washington, DC 10005

Not Party-Appellees Anco Ind. Diamond Corp., Amer Diamond Tool &
Gauge Inc. and British Diamond Import Co. are represented by:

          Edward W. Harris, III, Esq.
          One Indiana Square, Suite 3500
          Indianapolis, IN 46204

               - and -

          Robert A. Skirnick, Esq.
          One Liberty Plaza, 35th Floor
          New York, NY 10006

               - and -

          Jared Stamell, Esq.
          One Liberty Plaza, 35th Floor
          New York, NY 10006

Not Party-Amicus Appellee Jewelers Vigilance Comm. is represented

          Cecilia L. Gardner, Esq.
          25 West 45th St., Suite 1406
          New York, NY 10035

Not Party-Appellants William Benjamin Coffey, Jr., Marvin L.
Union, Tim Henning, Neil Freeman and Kylie Luke are represented

          Scott W. Browne, Esq.
          BROWNE & BROWNE
          2380 Eastex Freeway
          Beaumont, TX 77703

               - and -

          Kenneth E. Nelson, Esq.
          1100 Main St., Suite 2900
          Kansas, City, MO 64105

               - and -

          Stuart C. Yoes, Esq.
          P.O. Drawer 7584
          Beaumont, TX 77726

               - and -

          Edward F. Siegel, Esq.
          27600 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 340
          Cleveland, OH 44122

Not Party-Appellant Aaron Petrus is represented by:

          Christpher A. Bandas, Esq.
          500 North Shoreline, Suite 1020
          Corpus Christie, TX 78471

Not Party-Appellant Janet Giddings is represented by:

          Robert E. Margulies, Esq.
          3 Second St.
          Plaza 10, Suite 1201
          Jersey City, NJ 07311

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Weinstein, Esq.
          518 E. Tyler St.
          Athens, TX 75751

Not Party-Appellants Frank Ascione, Rosaura Bagolie, Matthew
Delong, Sandeep Gopalan, Manoj Kolel-Veetil, Matthew Metz, Anita
Pal, Deb K. Pal, Jay Pal, Ed McKenna, Peter Perera, Rangesh K.
Shah and Thomas Vaughan are represented by:

          Ricky E. Bagolie, Esq.
          660 Newark Ave.
          Jersey City, NJ 07306

               - and -

          Andrea Boggio, Esq.
          1150 Douglas Pike, Suite F
          Smithfield, RI 02917

EKSPORTFINANS ASA: Sued for Selling Derivative Bonds to Elders
The Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron APLC filed a class action
lawsuit on July 13, 2010, on behalf of purchasers of the Enhanced
Yield Reverse Exchangeable Securities with Contingent Downside
Protection underwritten by the Norwegian financial services
company, Eksportfinans A.S.A. between September 7, 2007, and the
date of filing, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action, captioned Miller v. Eksportfinans, A.S.A., et al., No.
10-cv-5336, is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendants Eksportfinans and
29 financial services and investment banking firms who acted as
underwriters for the issuance of the Securities.

The complaint alleges that the Securities were designed to appeal
to older persons and retirees seeking higher yields than those
available in Certificates of Deposit and/or treasuries in the
current low interest rate environment.  However, the Securities
were, allegedly, nothing more than risk-laden derivatives, which
defendants marketed directly to the investing public, mainly to
elderly retired persons, such as the Plaintiff, an 84-year-old
widow residing in San Diego.

The class action complaint further alleges that Eksportfinans'
offering targeted the risk-averse conservative investors with
suggestions that the notes were fully principal protected, which
appealed to retired persons and others on fixed incomes who were
seeking to preserve their capital and generate income.

Defendant Eksportfinans issued these securities to finance its
international credit operation from its headquarters in Oslo,
Norway. The securities allegedly provided twin benefits to
Eksportfinans: (1) they raised capital, and (2) they provided
Eksportfinans with an advantageous derivative position poised to
transfer stock market losses to the investors. These securities
were allegedly of an exotic type known as Reverse Convertible
Notes or Bonds, a type of "structured product", a category of
derivatives also comprised of the Schwab Yield Plus Fund and
Lehman Brothers products underwritten by Merrill Lynch and UBS.
Allegedly, the Securities functioned to transfer the risks of loss
of value in underlying securities from defendants to the small
unsophisticated retail investors who were sold the notes or bonds.

Investors were allegedly confused by the hidden complexity of
these "reverse convertibles" which mislead them into paying
inflated prices for them. "Contingent Downside Protection"
actually meant that the principal would be protected only if the
price of the underlying security did not decrease below certain
price at certain time. This caused the investors to lose money
when the notes matured and they found themselves unexpectedly left
holding shares of stock whose value was substantially less than
the principal originally paid in. Defendant's securities allegedly
caused forced conversions and losses to investors within a few
months after their purchase, in many cases.

The class action was brought against Eksportfinans A.S.A. and the
underwriters, who issued and facilitated the sale of the
Securities to the public.  In addition to Exportfinans, the
underwriters named in the lawsuit include Banc of America
Securities Limited, Merrill Lynch & Company; Bank of America
Corporation; Banc of America Securities LLC; Bear, Stearns & Co.;
JPMorgan; Barclay's Capital; BNP Paribas; Citigroup; Commerzbank
Capital Markets Corp.; Credit Suisse; Daiwa Securities SMBC
Europe; Deutsche Bank Securities; Dresdner Kleinwort; FTN
Financial Securities Corp.; Goldman, Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs
International; Ixis Securities North America Inc.; Jeffries and
Company, Inc.; Mitsubishi UFJ Securities International PLC; Mizuho
International PLC; Morgan Stanley; Nomura International; Nordea
PLC; The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD Financial Group); UBS
Investment Bank (UBS Financial Services); and Wells Fargo Bank.

Persons who bought the Securities of Eksportfinans between
September 7, 2007 and July 13, 2010, and sustained damages, may,
no later than September 13, 2010, request that the Court appoint
them as lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court
must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the
claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class.  Under certain circumstances, one
or more class members may serve together as "lead plaintiff." A
plaintiff's ability to share in any recovery is not, however,
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.  Plaintiffs may retain the Law Offices of Ronald A.
Marron APLC, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as their
counsel in this action.

The Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron APLC is a San Diego,
California law firm active in complex litigation pending in
federal and state courts throughout the United States.  Ronald A.
Marron has taken a leading role in many important actions on
behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and others for over 15
years.  Persons wishing to discuss this action, or having any
questions concerning this notice or their rights and interests
with regard to the case, should contact:

     Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
     3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Telephone: (619) 696-9006
     E-mail: ron@investorsadvocates.com

More information on the suit is available at no charge at:


H&R BLOCK: Gives New Evidence to Counter Plaintiffs' New Theories
The Madison/St. Clair Record's Steve Korris reports that class
action lawyers complain that H&R Block Tax Services introduced new
evidence in an old case, and Block's lawyers insist they did it
because the class action lawyers introduced new theories.

The dispute taxes the patience of U.S. District Judge Michael
Reagan, who must decide whether to certify a class action over
Block's "peace of mind" coverage.

At a class certification hearing in April, Judge Reagan pronounced
a pox on both houses for introducing new arguments.  He asked for
briefs and affidavits to help him make up his mind, but the
responses have only increased the difficulty in the decision.

On June 24, plaintiff lawyer Frank Janecek, Esq., of San Diego
moved to strike 50 exhibits and six affidavits that Block
submitted after the hearing.  Mr. Janecek wrote that Block should
have submitted the exhibits and affidavits in January, with its
memorandum opposing class certification.  He wrote that "there has
been no change in the law or facts to warrant the submission of
new evidence."

"Block's new affidavits describe and comment on entirely new
documents that were not in the record at the time of the hearing,"
he wrote.

On June 29, Block lawyer John Clear, Esq., of St. Louis wrote that
the materials establish beyond doubt that allegations against
Block are absolutely untrue.  He wrote that plaintiffs asked Judge
Reagan to find that preparers followed a uniform script and
uniformly omitted information about the likelihood of needing
peace of mind.

"Block was timely in presenting these materials to the court, and
is entitled to rebut the mistaken assertions of fact which had
never been made before," Mr. Clear wrote.

"Block moreover acted in compliance with specific instructions
from the court," he wrote.

Preventing the court from considering vital evidence is
hypocritical and unfair when plaintiffs have yet to plead their
claims, he wrote.

The current complaint claims Block failed to disclose that peace
of mind had little or no value, he wrote.

"That has been the way plaintiffs have couched their theory since
2002: an attack on the product itself, not on statistical details
as to tax audits or error rates," Mr. Clear wrote.

"Plaintiffs had never asserted a theory that there were omissions
to disclose error and claims rates or sales commissions until they
moved for class certification on these theories on December 3,

He wrote that on Jan. 19, plaintiffs for the first time espoused a
theory that preparers followed a single uniform script on computer
screens throughout the class period.

The class certification hearing was Block's first opportunity to
respond, he wrote, and Block advised the court that its screen
shots changed every year.

"Plaintiffs complained that it was for some reason unfair for
Block to bring these facts to the court's attention because, they
claimed, they had no prior notice despite the fact that other
screen shots had been produced years before in discovery," he

Block also demonstrated that it expected preparers to discuss
peace of mind in their own words, he wrote.

Plaintiffs then asserted that the court could certify a class on
an omission theory because Block failed to provide statistical
information to preparers, he wrote.

"This was the first time such an assertion was made as the basis
for class treatment of an omissions theory," he wrote.

"Block would violate duties to the court if it permitted the court
to make findings of fact on a record that both plaintiffs and
Block know to be incomplete," he wrote.

On July 9, Mark Brown, Esq., of LakinChapman replied that
plaintiffs misinterpreted Judge Reagan.

"The parties have wildly divergent interpretations of the court's
invitation to submit affidavits authenticating documents on which
either party wished the court to rely in the forthcoming class
certification order," he wrote.

"First, although the same uniform scripts were used for all
customers in any given year, plaintiffs did not mean to suggest
that the scripts went unchanged from year to year," he wrote.

"Second, this argument is a red herring, because whatever the
disclosures may have been from year to year, it is undisputed that
the scripts uniformly omitted the same information at issue and
which plaintiffs consider to be material," he wrote.

"Third, any dispute about the scripts could not even remotely
justify the post hearing submission of defendant's other non
script related documents not previously part of the record," he

The former Lakin Law Firm sued Block in Madison County circuit
court in 2002, on behalf of Lorie Marshall and Debra Ramirez.

Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn certified a national class
action, and he certified Block Tax Services to represent all Block
entities.  Block Tax Services moved to decertify the class, and
Judge Mendelsohn shrank it to 13 states.  He decertified the
defense class, prompting Block to remove the suit to federal

Block claimed Judge Mendelsohn turned it into a new case for
purposes of the national Class Action Fairness Act.  Judge Reagan
remanded it to Judge Mendelsohn, but Seventh Circuit appeals
judges in Chicago reversed Judge Reagan.  They wrote that Marshall
and Ramirez took Block Tax Services by surprise in pinning all
liability of the former defendant class on it.  When the case
returned to Judge Reagan, he ruled that he would not honor Judge
Mendelsohn's ruling on class certification.

Plaintiffs' counsel may be reached at:

     Frank J. Janecek, Jr., Esq.
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, California
     Telephone: (619) 231-1058
                (800) 449-4900
     E-mail: frankj@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

     Mark L. Brown, Esq.
     LakinChapman LLC
     Wood River, Illinois
     Telephone: (618) 208-4240
                (866) 839-2021
     Facsimile: (618) 254-0193

H&R Block is defended by:

     John Michael Clear, Esq.
     One Metropolitan Square
     211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
     St. Louis, Missouri 63102-2750
     Telephone: (314) 259-2283
     Facsimile: (314) 552-8283
     E-mail: jmclear@bryancave.com

KRISPY KREME: Accused in Fla. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
Courthouse News Service reports that Krispy Kreme stiffed workers
for overtime, according to a class action in Orlando Federal

A copy of the Complaint in Heileman v. Florida Doughnut Company,
Case No. 10-cv-01046 (M.D. Fla.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Camar R. Jones, Esq.
          1515 S. Federal Hwy, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

LHC GROUP: Kaplan Fox Probes Possible Securities Laws Violations
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has been investigating Lafayette,
Louisiana-based LHC Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: LHCG) for potential
violations of the federal securities laws.  Investors who
purchased Company securities may be affected.

On May 13, 2010, the WSJ reported that the Senate Finance
Committee had launched an investigation into the practices of LHC
Group and three other in-home healthcare companies.  According to
the May 13 WSJ article, letters were e-mailed to the CEOs of each
of the four companies requesting that each company provide
information on their companies' therapy visits from 2006 through
2009 and about financial relationships with referring physicians.
The Committee is investigating whether LHC Group and the other
companies deliberately boosted the number of home therapy visits
to trigger higher Medicare reimbursements

On July 13, 2010, after the market closed, LHC Group disclosed in
a press release that it had received a request from the Securities
and Exchange Commission to preserve all documents relating to the
Company's reimbursement practices.  According to the Company, in
the letter from the SEC, the SEC expressed its intent to issue a
subsequent request for the production of documents.

If you purchased publicly traded securities of LHC Group Inc. and
would like to discuss our investigation, please e-mail us at
mail@kaplanfox.com or contact:

     Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
     Joel B. Strauss, Esq.
     Donald R. Hall, Esq.
     Hae Sung Nam, Esq.
     Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
     Pamela A. Mayer, Esq.
     850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
     New York, New York 10022
     Telephone: (800) 290-1952
                (212) 687-1980
     Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
     E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com

          - and -

     Laurence D. King, Esq.
     350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
     San Francisco, California  94104
     Telephone: (415) 772-4700
     Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
     E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com

MARRIOTT INT'L: App. Ct. Affirms $108MM Lawyer Fees in Knik Case
In Scott Knik, v. Marriott International, Inc., case no. B220529
(Calif. App. Ct.), plaintiff challenges the attorney fees awarded
by the trial court following settlement of a class action lawsuit.
He argues on appeal that a higher award is warranted.

Mr. Knik sued Marriott alleging labor code violations by denying
nonsalaried employees appropriate meal and rest periods, without
providing compensation in lieu thereof.  Mr. Knik brought suit on
behalf of himself and all current and former nonsalaried employees
at the Marriott in Anaheim, Calif. for compensation owing from
November 2004 to the present.

The trial court awarded attorney fees of $93,161 to Kingsley &
Kingsley, who represented Mr. Knik, plus actual costs of $15,509.
No objection was made at the hearing to the court's reduction of
the requested attorney fees.

Justice Roger W. Boren, writing for the Appeals Court, held on
July 14, 2010, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in making its attorney fee award.  "Given the trial court's wide
latitude in fashioning an award that it deems fair, we cannot say
that the court abused its discretion," he said.  Justices Kathryn
Doi Todd and Victoria M. Chavez concurred.

A copy of the decision is available at:


The plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
     Elana R. Levine, Esq.
     Kelsey M. Peterson-More, Esq.
     City National Bank Building, Suite 1200
     16133 Ventura Boulevard
     Encino, CA 91436
     Telephone: (818) 990-8300
                (888) 500-8469 (Toll-free)
     Facsimile: (818) 990-2903

NASSAU: Ex-Social Services Workers Sue for Comp Time Payment
Sid Cassese at Newsday reports that Nassau County was served last
week with a class-action lawsuit seeking millions of dollars for
allegedly not paying terminated employees for their accumulated
compensatory time.  The suit, filed last month in federal court,
was initiated by two women terminated by the Department of Social
Services Dec. 31.  Social workers Patricia Johnson and Deborah
Reed had been with DSS four-plus years.

NESTLE SA: May Face Suit Over Product's Health Benefit Claims
Shane Starling, writing for Nutraingredients-usa.com, reports that
Nestle was not dealt a financial penalty in its settlement last
week with the Federal Trade Commission over immunity health claims
being made for some of its pro-biotic products, but a class action
is possible, says a food attorney.

"Google 'Nestle' and 'class action' tomorrow and I would not be
surprised if something popped up," Mr. Starling quotes Ivan
Wasserman, Esq., a Washington DC-based advertising and labeling
attorney at Manatt Phelps & Phillips, as saying on Thursday.

"Class actions were mounted after the FDA in February issued a
slew of warning letters to food companies for making misleading
claims so I can't see why that would not happen here."

On July 14, a subsidiary of Nestle S.A. agreed to drop allegedly
deceptive advertising claims about the health benefits of its
children's drink BOOST Kid Essentials, as part of a settlement
resolving the FTC's first case challenging advertising for
probiotics.  The FTC complaint charges that from fall 2008 to fall
2009, Nestle HealthCare Nutrition, Inc. made deceptive claims in
television, magazine, and print ads that BOOST Kid Essentials
prevents upper respiratory tract infections in children, protects
against colds and flu by strengthening the immune system, and
reduces absences from daycare or school due to illness.

BOOST Kid Essentials is a nutritionally complete drink intended
for children ages 1 to 13.  The probiotics in BOOST Kid Essentials
are embedded in a straw that comes with the drink, which was
prominently featured in ads for the product.  Probiotics are live,
beneficial bacteria that are found naturally in many foods, and
they are known for aiding digestion and fighting harmful bacteria.

"Nestle's claims that its probiotic product would prevent kids
from getting sick or missing school just didn't stand up to
scrutiny," said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC's Bureau of
Consumer Protection.  "Parents want to do right by their kids, and
the FTC is helping them by monitoring ads and stopping those that
are deceptive."

The advertisements challenged by the FTC featured the drink's
probiotic straw.  In one ad, the straw jumped out of the drink
box, formed a protective barrier around a girl as she encountered
a sneezing boy, and then formed steps allowing her to reach a
basketball hoop and shoot a ball into the net.

The ads falsely claimed that BOOST Kid Essentials is clinically
shown to reduce illness in children, to protect from colds and flu
by strengthening the immune system, and to help children up to age
13 recover more quickly from diarrhea, the FTC charged.

Under the proposed settlement, Nestle HCN has agreed to stop
claiming that BOOST Kid Essentials will reduce the risk of colds,
flu, and other upper respiratory tract infections unless the claim
is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.  Although FDA
approval of health claims generally is not required for compliance
with the FTC Act, in this case, the FTC determined that requiring
FDA pre-approval before Nestle HCN makes claims that certain
products prevent or reduce the risk of upper respiratory tract
infections will provide clearer guidance.  In turn, this will
facilitate Nestle HCN's compliance with the proposed settlement
order and will make the order easier to enforce.

Nestle HCN also has agreed to stop claiming that BOOST will reduce
children's sick-day absences and the duration of acute diarrhea in
children up to age 13, unless the claims are true and backed by at
least two well-designed human clinical studies.

The FTC's proposed settlement also prohibits Nestle HCN from
making any claims about the health benefits, performance, or
efficacy of any probiotic and nutrition drinks that it sells at
retail, unless the claims are true and backed by competent and
reliable scientific evidence.  It also bars the company from
misrepresenting any tests or studies.

The FTC vote to approve the administrative complaint and proposed
consent agreement was 5-0.  The FTC will publish an announcement
regarding the agreement in the Federal Register shortly.  The
agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning
today and continuing through August 16, 2010, after which the FTC
will decide whether to make it final.  To file a public comment,
go to https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/nestle

Copies of the complaint, the proposed consent agreement, and an
analysis of the agreement to aid in public comment are available
from both the FTC's Website at http://www.ftc.govand the FTC's
Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20580.

Nutraingredients-usa.com's Mr. Starling reports that recent class
actions against Dannon and Wrigley have succeeded in millions of
dollars being set aside by the food companies to reimburse
consumers for buying products bearing misleading health claims.

A copy of the Nestle settlement is available at no charge at:


According to Mr. Starling, Marc Ullman, Esq., food and drug
attorney at Ullman, Shapiro and Ullman in New York, didn't rule
out a class action on the grounds of misleading claims, but said
the settlement itself could not be used to back such an action as
it specifically cleared Nestle of any wrongdoing.

Mr. Ullman highlighted the disparity between the treatment of
Nestle and supplements manufacturer Iovate Health Sciences, which
was hit with a $5.5 million fine for misleading immunity  and
weight loss claims, also last week.

"There is a double standard here in that if you are Big Food you
get treated one way and if you are a supplements company you get
treated another way," he said.

"The fact is the FTC brought this action so either Nestle had the
evidence to back the claims or it didn't. The FTC should have
dropped the case if the evidence was there or fined the company if
it was not. These settlements send a bad signal to the industry."

Recent FTC settlements with Kellogg's evidenced the disparity, he
said, adding the severity of the Iovate action meant supplement
companies were better off litigating if they came under the
scrutiny of the FTC.

"As it stands the odds are better to litigate than settle. You are
better off in front of a judge and losing," Mr. Ullman said.

The fact the FTC had stipulated that Nestle must have two gold
standard clinical trials to back any future claims in the area,
and that they must be pre-approved by the FDA, was going to create
interesting interpretations in the law, he said.  Of the two
trials aspect, Mr. Ullman said, "The FTC has slipped this
provision in here and will hope to rely on it but I would doubt
that a court will be willing to enforce it."

Mr. Wasserman added: "These settlements show that when settling
cases involving health and safety claims in the future, the FTC
may be very specific in the type of evidence that the advertisers
will be required to possess before they are able to make similar
claims again. Whether the specific substantiation required in
these orders becomes FTC's de facto substantiation standard
remains to be seen."

PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES: Minority Shareholders Sue Over Buyout
Sun-Times Media reports that three minority-Playboy Enterprises
Inc. shareholders filed a class action complaint Wednesday against
Chicago-based Playboy Enterprises, Inc., current and former owner
Hugh Hefner, as well as other executives.

Steven Braun, David Lorenzini and Raymond Malkiewcz filed the
class action complaint in Cook County Circuit Court against
Playboy Enterprises Inc., majority owner Hugh M. Hefner, Executive
Vice President Richard S. Rosenzweig, CEO Scott N. Flanders, "non-
executive chairman of the board" David I. Chemerow, Chairman of
the Compensation Committee Sol Rosenthal, compensation committee
member Russ Pillar, board audit committee members Dennis S.
Bookshster and Charles Hirschhorn and board member Kai-Shing Tao.

Malkiewcz also lists Rizvi Traverse Management LLC and Lorenzini
lists Christoph M. Pachler as defendants.

The complaint arises from Mr. Hefner's -- and Rizvi Traverse
Management's -- attempt to buy 100% of Playboy's outstanding stock
for "inadequate and unfair consideration and to the detriment of
the public shareholders."  The complaint says Mr. Hefner --
founder and majority shareholder since the corporation went public
in 1971 -- has blocked any non-Hefner driven acquisition of the
corporation and now wants to take the company private at a
"significant discount."

On July 12, Playboy announced Mr. Hefner wants to buy all
outstanding stock for $5.50 per share, which the complaint claims
is below market value.

Messrs. Braun, Lorenzini and Malkiewcz claims the purchase is a
breach of fiduciary duties.  The complaints seeks a judge declare
the class, rescind Hefner's proposed acquisition, order the
defendants to obtain a transaction that is in the best interest of
the minority shareholders and award costs for attorneys fees.

Courthouse News Service reports that the shareholders claim
Playboy is selling itself too cheaply to Mr. Hefner and Rizvi --
for $5.50 a share or $185 million -- after rejecting a sale "that
might have fetched as much as $300 million."

A copy of the Complaint in Malkiewcz v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 10CH30197 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is
available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leigh R. Lasky, Esq.
          Norman Rifkind, Esq.
          Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
          LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
          350 North LaSalle St., Suite 1320
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 634-0057

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          David A. Knotts, Esq.
          Eun Jin Lee, Esq.
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484) 588-5516

QUEBEC GAS CARTEL: Competition Bureau Files Criminal Charges
The Canadian Competition Bureau on July 15 announced that new
criminal charges have been laid against 25 individuals and three
companies accused of fixing the price of gasoline at the pump in
Victoriaville, Thetford Mines, Magog and Sherbrooke.

Unless new evidence comes to light, these charges mark the final
charges in the largest criminal investigation in the history of
the Competition Bureau.  Investigators seized over 100,000
records, searched 90 locations, and intercepted thousands of
telephone conversations over the course of the investigation.

"These charges demonstrate that we are unwavering in our
commitment to crack down on cartels," said Melanie Aitken,
Commissioner of Competition.  "This case of price-fixing in the
gasoline industry illustrates how cartels cheat honest taxpayers
out of their money."

The Bureau's other investigations into price-fixing in the
gasoline industry outside of Quebec are ongoing.  According to
Statistics Canada, Canadians spent over C$38 billion on automotive
fuels, oils and additives in 2009.

The charges were broken up into two groups owing to the size of
the case.  The new charges bring the total to 38 individuals and
14 companies accused in this case.  These are new charges against
important alleged cartel participants stemming from the extensive
Bureau investigation that culminated in a first wave of charges in
June 2008.

The names of the individuals and companies charged are available


A complete list of the pleas, fines, and sentences to date is also
available at:


The Bureau's investigation found evidence that gas retailers or
their representatives in the four regional markets phoned one
another and agreed on the price they would charge customers for
gasoline.  The evidence suggests that the overwhelming majority of
gasoline retailers in these markets participated in the cartel.

The Competition Bureau used several investigative tools in this
case, including wiretaps and searches, as well as its Immunity and
Leniency programs, which create incentives for parties to address
their criminal liability by cooperating with the Bureau in its
ongoing investigation and prosecution of other alleged cartel

The documents are also available on the Competition Bureau Web

    * Backgrounder: Further details on the Bureau's investigation.


    * Gas Prices: Answers to frequently asked questions and
information about Bureau activities concerning gasoline and other
petroleum products.


    * Criminal Investigations -- Basic Process: A short outline of
how the Competition Bureau investigates marketplace activity which
may be subject to criminal sanctions under the Competition Act.


Nicolas Van Praet, writing for Financial Post, reports that the
bureau said it continues to look into gasoline industry price
collusion outside the French-speaking province, but provided no
other details.

According to Financial Post, four companies and 10 individuals
pleaded guilty in the first round of charges, including petroleum
marketer and refiner Ultramar Ltd.  Ultramar accepted
responsibility for the actions of one of its regional sales
representatives, but said it was unaware of his actions.  The
company paid a C$1.85-million fine and fired the rep.

The report says the merchants and individuals charged in the
newest wave of allegations operated stores under the banners
Sonic, Shell, Sonerco, Irving and Petro Canada.  The local
operators, not the oil companies, were responsible for setting the
final price at the pump, the Competition Bureau noted.  The
accused face possible jail terms of up to five years and a maximum
fine of C$10 million.  Stiffer penalties enacted this past March
will not apply because the events took place before then.

The report says the comments of a former Esso service station
owner in Victoriaville to a local newspaper triggered the original
investigation.  The man, Christian Goulet, said he and his staff
received dozens of calls from unidentified people urging him to
raise gasoline prices because he was undercutting other local
operators.  Mr. Goulet has since moved away from Victoriaville.

The Post recalls motorists who were scammed filed a class action
lawsuit application almost immediately after the scheme was made
public in 2008.  A record 42 defendants, the most ever in a Quebec
class action suit, were subsequently named in connection to the

Canadians spent over C$38 billion on automotive fuels, oils and
additives last year, the Competition Bureau says.  The bureau,
which has about 430 employees on its payroll as an independent law
enforcement agency, says it is currently investigating price-
fixing allegations in a range of industries in markets across the

The Competition Bureau -- http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/--
is an independent law enforcement agency that contributes to the
prosperity of Canadians by protecting and promoting competitive
markets and enabling informed consumer choice.

SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Enters Into Mediation, Skips 2nd Jury Trial
The Times-Standard reports that attorneys in the class action
lawsuit against Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., agreed Thursday
morning to enter into mediation in the case, forgoing a second
jury trial.  The parties have agreed to recommence the case in the
form of a bench trial -- which means a judge rather than a jury
will hear the evidence -- on Aug. 9.

The Class Action Reporter, on July 9, 2010, reported that a jury
in Humboldt County, California, returned a verdict against Skilled
Healthcare related to a complaint filed more than four years ago.
In the first phase of deliberations, the jury awarded the
plaintiffs $613 million in statutory damages and $58 million in
restitutionary damages.  The jury has yet to hear the punitive
damages phase of the trial and will continue to further

Matt Drange, writing for The Times-Standard, said the issue at the
heart of the case is a California statute that mandates 3.2
nursing hours per patient per day.  The lawsuit covers the years
2003 to 2009, and represents a class of some 32,000 patients.

The jury assessed the maximum amount of damages allowed by Health
and Safety Code 1430 (b): California statute that mandates that
nursing homes maintain 3.2 nursing hours per-patient per-day.  The
total damages were assessed at a rate of $500 per-patient per-day
that the 22 nursing facilities involved in the suit were in
violation of the law.

The jury was slated last week to decide on the extent of
additional punitive damages.  Judge Bruce Watson would then decide
if the court will issue an injunction against Skilled Healthcare
that would mandate the company to keep staffing levels compliant
with the law in the future.

According to the Troubled Company Reporter on July 8, 2010, to
satisfy the typical bonding requirement to defer enforcement of
a judgment during the pendancy of an appeal, the Company would be
required to post a bond for 150% of the final judgment amount.
The Company currently has $94 million of borrowing capacity under
its $100 million revolving credit facility.  However, the
Company's ability to draw on its credit facility is limited by the
covenants of that facility.

The Company's primary professional liability insurance coverage
has been exhausted for the policy year applicable to this case.
The excess insurance carrier issuing the policy applicable to this
case has issued its reservation of rights to preserve an assertion
of non-coverage for this case due to the lack of any allegation of
injury or harm to the plaintiffs.  Even if the Company is
successful in obtaining insurance coverage for this matter, the
amount of the jury verdict far exceeds the policy limits of its

The case is entitled VINNIE LAVENDER, by and through her
SKILLED HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC., et al, (and 22 individually-named
California nursing facilities receiving administrative services
from Skilled Healthcare, LLC).

                          *     *    *

According to Bloomberg, the Company's revenue of $759.8 million in
2009 resulted in a net loss of $133.2 million.  For the first
quarter of 2010, the Company's net income was $8.9 million on
revenue of $189.3 million.

The balance sheet at March 31 showed current assets of $131.4
million among total assets of $859 million.  Current liabilities
were $91.7 million.  Total liabilities were $574.7 million.

               About Skilled Healthcare Group

Based in Foothill Ranch, California, Skilled Healthcare Group,
Inc. (NYSE: SKH), is a holding company with subsidiary healthcare
services companies, which in the aggregate had consolidated annual
revenues of nearly $760 million and approximately 14,000 employees
as of March 31, 2010.  Skilled Healthcare Group and its wholly-
owned companies operate long-term care facilities and provide a
wide range of post-acute care services, with a strategic emphasis
on sub-acute specialty health care.  The Company operates long-
term care facilities in California, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nevada, New Mexico and Texas, including 78 skilled nursing
facilities that offer sub-acute care and rehabilitative and
specialty health skilled nursing care, and 22 assisted living
facilities that provide room and board and social services.

STI PREPAID: N.J. Court Gives Tentative OK to $8-Mil. Settlement
The New Jersey Law Journal reports that a federal magistrate judge
in Newark, N.J., gave preliminary approval on July 13 to an $8.4
million settlement of a class action alleging prepaid calling
cards did not provide the quantity of minutes advertised.

The deal, which will come before U.S. Magistrate Judge Madeline
Cox Arleo for a fairness hearing on Nov. 16, will affect hundreds
of thousands of people who bought STi Prepaid cards from 2001
until the present.

Of the total settlement, $1 million will go toward free or
discounted minutes and up to $7.4 million for refunds, according
to the preliminary settlement.  An additional $2 million will go
toward attorney fees and costs.

The complaint, in Ramirez v. STi Prepaid LLC, 08-1089, alleged
that the cards, both rechargeable and nonrechargeable, did not
provide the number of minutes advertised, and that voice prompts
did not tell users making calls how many minutes they had left.

The plaintiffs alleged violations of New Jersey, California,
Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Tennessee, New York,
Washington and West Virginia laws against unfair and deceptive
trade practices.  Specifically, they said the defendants engaged
in unjust enrichment as well as fraud and misrepresentation and
violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  The defendants
created a "massive scheme to deceive and/or mislead customers" in
the cards' manufacture, marketing and distribution by not
providing the promised minutes, the plaintiffs alleged.  In
addition, they allegedly "engaged in calculated silence and did so
because of the prospect of huge profits."

Defense lawyer Edward Kole, Esq., at Wilentz, Goldman and Spitzer
in Woodbridge, N.J., says his clients deny the allegations. The
settlement agreement says that it should not be construed as any
admission of liability.

The settlement provides that the defendants would establish a
website and toll-free telephone number with information, in
English and Spanish, explaining the status of the settlement and
providing instructions.

Defense lawyer John Goldman, Esq., at Herrick Feinstein in
Princeton, N.J., did not return a call.

One of the plaintiffs lawyers, Bruce Nagel, Esq., at Nagel Rice in
Roseland, N.J., says he is pleased with the settlement.  His co-
counsel, James Cecchi, Esq., at Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein,
Brody & Agnello in Roseland, did not return an e-mail message.

Plaintiffs' lawyers may be reached at:

     Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
     103 Eisenhower Parkway
     Roseland, NJ  07068
     Telephone: (973) 618-0400 ext. 110
     Facsimile: (973) 618-9194
     E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com

          - and -

     James E. Cecchi, Esq.
     5 Becker Farm Rd.
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Telephone: (973) 994-1700
     Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
     E-mail: JCecchi@CarellaByrne.com

Defendants' lawyers may be reached at:

     Edward T. Kole, Esq.
     90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 Box 10
     Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0958
     Telephone: (732) 855-6125
     Facsimile: (732) 726-6655
     E-mail: ekole@wilentz.com

          - and -

     John R. Goldman, Esq.
     2 Park Avenue
     New York, New York 10016
     Telephone: (212) 592-1460
     Facsimile: (212) 545-3440
     E-mail: jgoldman@herrick.com

T-MOBILE: To Pay $55 Million to Settle Suit Over Back Taxes
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that T-Mobile will
pay $55 million to settle a class action over back taxes.  The
money will be divvied out to St. Louis County and 200 cities

This is the last in a series of tax lawsuits filed since 2001
against cellular companies and AT&T for landline service.  The
companies, including T-Mobile, argued that the landline taxes did
not apply to cellular service.  The total amount to be paid to the
various municipalities, including the T-Mobile settlement, is
estimated to be between $400 million and $450 million.

T-Mobile can pass $42 million of the judgment on to customers, the
settlement states.  Attorneys will split $3.09 million of the

St. Louis County Court Judge Bernhardt Drumm gave the settlement
preliminary approval.  A hearing for final approval is set for
Oct. 19.

TARGET DATE FUNDS: Kaplan Fox Probes Securities Laws Violations
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has been investigating Target Date
Funds, also known as "life cycle funds", which claim to
automatically adjust their portfolios to become more conservative
as a participant nears retirement.

An October 2009 report of The Special Committee on Aging of The
United States Senate entitled "Target Date Retirement Funds:  Lack
of Clarity Among Structures and Fees Raises Concerns" identified
three main concerns with "target date funds: (1) lack of
disclosure and consistency in their design, (2) excessive fees,
and (3) conflicts of interest.  According to an October 30, 2009
Wall Street Journal article entitled "'Target Date' Funds Get
Senate Scrutiny" assets in target-date funds registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission total about $227 billion.

Recently, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission proposed new
rules for Target Date Funds.  Among other things, the proposed
amendments, if adopted, would require a target date retirement
fund that includes the target date in its name to disclose the
fund's asset allocation at the target date immediately adjacent to
the first use of the fund's name in marketing materials.  These
rules are intended to provide enhanced information to investors
concerning target date retirement funds and reduce the potential
for investors to be confused or misled.

According to a July 6, 2010 CNBC.com article reporting on the
proposed SEC rules, Oppenheimer and Putnam have already clarified
the asset-allocation plans and fee structures of their Target Date

If you purchased Target Date Fund shares or securities and would
like to discuss our investigation, please e-mail us at
mail@kaplanfox.com or contact:

     Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
     Joel B. Strauss, Esq.
     Donald R. Hall, Esq.
     Hae Sung Nam, Esq.
     Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
     Pamela A. Mayer, Esq.
     850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
     New York, New York 10022
     Telephone: (800) 290-1952
                (212) 687-1980
     Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
     E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com

          - and -

     Laurence D. King, Esq.
     350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
     San Francisco, California  94104
     Telephone: (415) 772-4700
     Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
     E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com

TOTS IN MIND: Recalls 20,085 Playard Tents Plus Cabana Kits
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Tots in Mind Inc., of Salem, N.H., is announcing
the voluntary recall of about 20,000 (and 85 in Canada) Cozy
Indoor Outdoor Portable Playard Tents Plus Cabana Kits.

Clips that attach the tent to the top of the playard can break or
be removed by a child.  A child can lift the tent and become
entrapped at the neck between the rigid playard frame and the
metal base rod of the tent, posing a strangulation hazard.

CPSC is aware of a death of a 2-year-old boy in December 2008 in
Vinalhaven, Maine.  The boy was found hanging with his neck
entrapped between the playard frame and the metal base rod of the
tent that had been partially tied by pieces of nylon rope and
partially attached by clips.  The tent was tied to the playard
because the child was able to pop off the clips.  Apparently, the
child became entrapped while attempting to climb out of the
playard.  In three other incidents, children were able to remove
one or more clips and place their necks between the tent and the
playard.  The children were not injured.

The dome-shaped white-colored mesh tent is designed to fit over
playards as small as 28 inches by 40 inches or as large as 31
inches by 44 inches to contain a child.  There are 12 plastic
clips to secure the base of the tent to the top rail of the
playard through button holes along the bottom of the tent.  The
tent has a zippered side for putting in and taking out the child.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:


The cribs were made in China and sold at Walmart, Amazon.com and
various baby and children's stores nationwide from January 2005
through February 2010 for about $60.

Consumers should immediately stop using the playard tents and
contact Tots in Mind to get free replacement clips.  Replacement
clips will be available in late August or early September 2010.
Contact Tots in Mind toll-free at (800) 626-0339 between 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.TotsinMind.com/


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  * * *