CAR_Public/090805.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, August 5, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 153
  
                           Headlines

ALABAMA: Settles Lawsuit Over Lengthy Waiting List for Services
APPLIED ENERGETICS: Settles Ariz. Securities Fraud Litigation
BIOVAIL CORP: Pa. Court Nixes Some Wellbutrin Antitrust Claims
BOEING CO: Judgment Motions in Suit Over VIP Plan Still Pending
BOEING CO: Seeks Dismissal of "Apsley" Age Bias Lawsuit in Kans.

BOEING CO: Still Faces Suit Over Sale of Wichita Plant to Spirit
BOEING CO: Suit Over Spirit's Hiring Decisions Pending in Kansas
BOEING CO: Summary Judgment Bids in UAW Retirees' Suit Pending
CASELLA WASTE: Lawsuit Over BMR Discriminatory Practices Pending
CHARLOTTE RUSSE: Seeks Writ Review in Ex-Employees' Labor Suit

CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG: Faces Homeless' Civil Rights Litigation
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Workers Appeal Dismissal of Calif. ERISA Suit
D.A. DAVIDSON: Settles Mont. Suit Over 2007 Data Security Breach
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Expects to Pay Settlement Amount in FY 2010
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Mulls Deal Payment in Servers' Suit in 2010

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in Fla.
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: To Defend Wage and Hour Lawsuit in New York
IKANOS COMMS: Appeal in N.Y. Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Md. Court Dismisses "Vidmar" Securities Suit
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Nevada

JANUS CAPITAL: Faces Remaining Claims in Market Timing Lawsuit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Funds Mull Joining N.Y. Suit Over Certificates
MELT INC: Appeal to Junked California Franchisees' Suit Pending
MELT INC: Still Faces "Jong Han" Franchise Acts Violations Suit
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Remanded ERISA Lawsuit Still Pending in Calif.

PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: Ill. Court Nixes Suit Over Baby-Bottle Coolers
TENNESSEE: Faces Lawsuit Seeking Recovery of "Crack Tax" Money
TEXAS: Agency Faces Suit Over Food Stamp Applications Processing
WALGREEN CO: Settles Consumer Fraud Suit Over Wal-Born Products

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GENZYME CORP: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing
GENZYME CORP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mass.
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Stull Stull Announces Nev. Stock Suit Filing
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing

                           *********

ALABAMA: Settles Lawsuit Over Lengthy Waiting List for Services
---------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Alabama agreed to settle a nearly decade-old
lawsuit over the lengthy waiting list for services with people
with intellectual disabilities, Kim Chandler at The Birmingham
News reports.

The class-action lawsuit was filed in 2000 and accused the state
of violating the Medicaid Act by not having enough services
available.  One of the complaints raised in the case was that
individuals would not know where they stood in the wait for
services, according to the daily newspaper.  

The settlement agreement does not force the state to spend more
money on services, but it does require the state to provide a
centralized telephone number, quick notification, and an appeals
process to families seeking services.  

James A. Tucker, Esq., an attorney with the Alabama Disabilities
Advocacy Program, tells Ms. Chandler that the settlement
agreement will make the system more "consumer friendly."

For more details, contact:

          James A. Tucker, Esq.
          Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program
          University of Alabama
          526 Martha Parham West
          Box 870395
          Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487
          Phone: (205) 348-4928
          Fax: (205) 348-3909
          Web site: http://www.adap.net


APPLIED ENERGETICS: Settles Ariz. Securities Fraud Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
     Applied Energetics, Inc., (Nasdaq: AERG), reached an
agreement with the lead plaintiffs to settle the consolidated
class action lawsuits originally filed in July 2006 in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona [George
Wood, et al. v. Ionatron, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-00354]
against Applied Energetics and its founders, and also reached an
agreement to settle the derivative action against certain
current and former officers and directors originally filed in
September 2006 in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in
and for the County of Pima.

     Under the terms of the proposed settlement of the class
action lawsuits, those lawsuits will be dismissed with
prejudice, and Applied Energetics and all other defendants will
receive a full and complete release of all claims asserted
against them in the litigation, in exchange for the payment of
an aggregate of $5.3 million in cash and the issuance of
previously unissued shares of common stock by Applied Energetics
valued at $1.2 million, provided that the number of shares of
common stock to be issued will not exceed 4 million shares.  
There is no admission of liability by any of the defendants.

     Under the terms of the proposed settlement the derivative
action, the lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice, and all
defendants will receive a full and complete release of all
claims asserted against them in the litigation, in exchange for
Applied Energetics' maintenance of certain corporate governance
measures and the payment of an aggregate of $225,000 of
attorneys' fees.  There is no admission of liability by any of
the defendants.

     Insurance proceeds of $6.2 million, less amounts previously
reimbursed to Applied Energetics to pay expenses of the
litigations (approximately $700,000 to date), will be used to
fund the settlement payments and related costs.  Any remaining
cash payments and the stock issuance will be made by Applied
Energetics.

     The settlements are subject to Court approval.  Motions for
preliminary approval of the settlements, directing notice of the
settlements and setting a date for a settlement fairness hearing
are currently being filed.

     As stated in the settlement documents, Applied Energetics
denies any liability in connection with the litigation and
denies the claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the complaints.  
However, Applied Energetics believes these settlements are in
the best interest of Applied Energetics and its stockholders, as
it eliminates the uncertainties, distractions, burden and
further expense associated with the litigations.

Applied Energetics, Inc., -- http://www.appliedenergetics.com--  
specializes in development and manufacture of high performance
lasers, high voltage electronics, advanced optical systems, and
integrated guided energy systems for defense, aerospace,
industrial, and scientific customers worldwide.  Applied
Energetics pioneered the development of Laser Guided Energy
(LGE(R)) technology, and related solutions for defense and
security applications.

The plaintiffs in the securities fraud litigation are
represented by:

          Alison K. Clark, Esq.
          Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
          280 King of Prussia Rd
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056
          E-mail: aclark@sbclasslaw.com


BIOVAIL CORP: Pa. Court Nixes Some Wellbutrin Antitrust Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary A. McLaughlin of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed most of the claims
brought by a group of employee benefit plans in a putative
antitrust class-action lawsuit alleging that Biovail Corp. and
GlaxoSmithKline PLC conspired to stifle the market for a generic
version of antidepressant Wellbutrin XL, Law360 reports.

In a ruling issued on July 31, 2009, the judge granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss claims under all but six state
statutes, according to the report.

In May, Law360 reported that Biovail Corp. and SmithKline
Beecham Corp. moved to dismiss a consolidated class-action
complaint filed against them by indirect purchasers of
Wellbutrin XL (Class Action Reporter, May 5, 2009).

The motions, filed on April 30, 2009, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sought to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety, reports Law360.


BOEING CO: Judgment Motions in Suit Over VIP Plan Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Summary judgment motions in a class action lawsuit concerning
the Boeing Company Voluntary Investment Plan are pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  

On Oct. 13, 2006, the company was named as a defendant in a
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.

Plaintiffs, seeking to represent a class of similarly situated
participants and beneficiaries in the VIP Plan, alleged that
fees and expenses incurred by the VIP Plan were and are
unreasonable and excessive, not incurred solely for the benefit
of the VIP Plan and its participants, and were undisclosed to
participants.

The plaintiffs further alleged that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of Section 502(a)(2) of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and sought injunctive
and equitable relief pursuant to Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class, which Boeing
opposed.

On Dec. 14, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint, which complaint added Boeing's Employee
Benefits Investment Committee as a defendant and included new
allegations regarding alleged breach of fiduciary duty.  The
stay of proceedings entered by the court on Sept. 10, 2007,
pending resolution by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit of Lively v. Dynegy, Inc., was lifted on April 3, 2008,
after notification that the Lively case had settled.

On April 16, 2008, plaintiffs sought leave to file a second
amended complaint, which Boeing opposed, which would add
investment performance allegations.

On Aug. 22, 2008, the court granted plaintiffs leave to file
their second amended complaint.  

Plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on Aug. 25, 2008.  

On Sept. 29, 2008, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to
certify the class of current, past and future participants or
beneficiaries in the VIP Plan.

On Sept. 9, 2008, the company filed a motion for summary
judgment to dismiss claims arising prior to Sept. 27, 2000,
based on the ERISA statute of limitations.  The plaintiffs
opposed this motion and the motion is currently pending before
the court.

On Oct. 14, 2008, the company filed a petition for leave to
appeal the class certification order to the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals.  The plaintiffs opposed this motion and it is
currently pending before the court of appeals.

On Jan. 15, 2009, Boeing filed a motion seeking dismissal of all
claims as a matter of law.  The summary judgment motions are
currently pending before the court, according to the company's
July 22, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.  

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the  
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The Company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the Company's Integrated
Defense Systems business.  The Other segment classification
principally includes the activities of Engineering, Operations
and Technology, an advanced research and development
organization focused on technologies, processes and the creation
of new products.


BOEING CO: Seeks Dismissal of "Apsley" Age Bias Lawsuit in Kans.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. and Spirit Aerosystems are seeking for the
dismissal of an age discrimination lawsuit that followed
Boeing's 2005 sale of commercial airplane operations in Kansas
and Oklahoma, The Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed on Dec. 19, 2005 in the U.S. District Court
for the District Court for the District of Kansas by former
Boeing workers, who are claiming that they lost their jobs
because of their age.

The workers are now seeking class-action status for the lawsuit,
which is captioned Apsley et al v. The Boeing Company, et al,
Case No. 6:05-cv-01368-EFM-KMH.

In seeking for the case's dismissal, the companies contend that
the plaintiffs cannot prove any intent to prevent older workers
from attaining pension benefits.  They also argue there were
legitimate reasons for Spirit not hiring all the former Boeing
workers, according to The AP.

In addition to arguing against granting class-action status,
Boeing and Spirit are asking Judge Eric F. Melgren to summarily
rule in their favor, The Associated Press reported.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Uzo L. Ohaebosim, Esq.
         Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr., Esq.
         Monique K. Centeno, Esq.
         Shores, Williamson & Ohaebosim, LLC
         301 N. Main, 1400 Epic Center
         Wichita, KS 67202
         Phone: 316-261-5400
         Fax: 316-261-5404
         E-mail: l.williamson@swolawfirm.com
                 u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com
                 m.centeno@swolawfirm.com

              - and -

         Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr.
         Williamson Law Firm, LLC
         816 Ann Avenue
         Kansas City, KS 66101
         Phone: 913-871-7060
         Fax: 913-535-0736
         E-mail: l.williamson@williamsonfirm.com

Representing the defendants are:

         James M. Armstrong, Esq.
         Carolyn L. Matthews, Esq.
         Foulston Siefkin, LLP
         1551 N Waterfront Parkway, Ste. 100
         Wichita, KS 67206-4466
         Phone: 316-291-9576 and 316-267-6371
         Fax: 316-267-6345
         E-mail: cmatthews@foulston.com
                 jarmstrong@foulston.com


BOEING CO: Still Faces Suit Over Sale of Wichita Plant to Spirit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An alleged class action involving The Boeing Co.'s sale of the
Wichita facility to Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., remains pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, according to
the company's July 22, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2009.

The case, filed on Feb. 21, 2007, is brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and, in general, claims
that the company did not properly provide benefits to certain
categories of former employees affected by the sale.

On May 22, 2008, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint and
on June 3, 2008, filed a motion to certify a class.

On July 14, 2008, the court granted class certification for the
purpose of adjudicating liability for the class of employees who
went to work for Spirit, and deferred class certification
motions for the class of employees who did not go to work for
Spirit.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the  
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The Company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the Company's Integrated
Defense Systems business.  The Other segment classification
principally includes the activities of Engineering, Operations
and Technology, an advanced research and development
organization focused on technologies, processes and the creation
of new products.


BOEING CO: Suit Over Spirit's Hiring Decisions Pending in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. continues to face a putative class action
complaint over the hiring decisions made by Spirit AeroSystems,
Inc., according to the company's July 22, 2009 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

On March 2, 2006, the company was served with a complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging
that hiring decisions made by Spirit near the time of its sale
of the Wichita facility were tainted by age discrimination,
violated Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA),
violated its collective bargaining agreements, and constituted
retaliation.

The case is brought as a class action on behalf of individuals
not hired by Spirit.  

Spirit has refused to indemnify Boeing for all claims arising
from employment activity prior to Jan. 1, 2005.

On June 4, 2008, claims by individuals who filed consents to
join the Age Discrimination Employment Act collective action and
were terminated by Boeing prior to Jan. 1, 2005 were dismissed
by stipulated order.

On June 15, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification for certain former Boeing employees at the
Wichita, Tulsa and McAlester facilities over the age of 40 who
were laid off between Jan. 1, 2005 and July 1, 2005, and were
not hired by Spirit on June 17, 2005.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the  
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The Company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the Company's Integrated
Defense Systems business.  The Other segment classification
principally includes the activities of Engineering, Operations
and Technology, an advanced research and development
organization focused on technologies, processes and the creation
of new products.


BOEING CO: Summary Judgment Bids in UAW Retirees' Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for summary judgment in a class action lawsuit by two
UAW Local 1069 retirees against The Boeing Co. remains pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

On Sept. 13, 2006, two UAW Local 1069 retirees filed a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee alleging that recently announced changes
to medical plans for retirees of UAW Local 1069 constituted a
breach of collective bargaining agreements under Section 301 of
the Labor-Management Relations Act and Section 502(a)(1)(B) of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

On Sept. 15, 2006, the company filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the
International UAW and two retiree medical plan participants
seeking a declaratory judgment confirming that Boeing has the
legal right to make changes to these medical benefits.

On June 4, 2007, the Middle District of Tennessee ordered that
its case be transferred to the Northern District of Illinois.

The two cases were consolidated on Sept. 24, 2007.

The UAW filed a Motion to file a Second Amended Complaint on
Oct. 26, 2007, in which it sought to drop the retirees' claim
for vested lifetime benefits based on successive collective
bargaining agreements and instead allege that the current
collective bargaining agreement is the sole alleged source of
rights to retiree medical benefits.  The company opposed the
motion.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the court granted the motion to amend the
complaint.  

Both parties filed Motions for Class Certification on Nov. 16,
2007, and filed briefs on class certification on Feb. 28, 2008.  

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on May 27,
2008.  On Sept. 30, 2008, the court certified a class of
retirees for all claims.  The summary judgment motions are
currently pending before the court, according to the company's
July 22, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the  
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The Company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the Company's Integrated
Defense Systems business.  The Other segment classification
principally includes the activities of Engineering, Operations
and Technology, an advanced research and development
organization focused on technologies, processes and the creation
of new products.


CASELLA WASTE: Lawsuit Over BMR Discriminatory Practices Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Casella Waste Systems, Inc. and Blue Mountain Recycling, LLC
continue to defend a class-action lawsuit over discriminatory
hiring practices.

In November 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed in U.S.
District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania against BMR and
the company, alleging discriminatory hiring practices at BMR's
facility in Philadelphia.

A companion complaint was filed in February 2009, with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.

BMR and the company deny all allegations, according to its July
24, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2009.

Casella Waste Systems, Inc. -- http://www.casella.com/-- is a  
vertically integrated company.  The company operates in 15
states.  It operates vertically integrated solid waste
operations in Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts,
and Maine, and materials processing facilities in Connecticut,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Michigan, and Wisconsin.


CHARLOTTE RUSSE: Seeks Writ Review in Ex-Employees' Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Russe Holdings, Inc.'s writ petition in a labor-
related lawsuit in California filed by two former employees
remains pending with the California Court of Appeal.

On June 11, 2008, a complaint was filed against the company in
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, by two
former store employees (Shannon Palm and Kayla Lovato).

The complaint is styled as a class action and the causes of
action arise out of allegations of failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, requiring
employees to purchase store product and violations relating to
form of payment of wages.  It seeks unspecified damages,
penalties and attorneys' fees.

The company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings to
preclude the majority of the claims from proceeding as a class
action.  The motion was granted with leave to amend the
complaint.

On Dec. 22, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On March 25, 2009, the company filed a motion in response to the
amended complaint (Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2009).

The company's motion was denied.  The company has sought writ
review of that ruling from the California Court of Appeal.  To
date, the California Court of Appeal has not ruled on the
company's writ petition.  The parties are engaged in discovery,
according to the company's July 22, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 27, 2009.

Charlotte Russe Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.charlotte-
russe.com/ -- is a mall-based specialty retailer of fashionable,
value-priced apparel and accessories targeting young women in
their teens and twenties.  As of September 27, 2008, it operated
487 Charlotte Russe retail stores in 45 states and Puerto Rico.
The Charlotte Russe stores are located in mall locations in
spaces that average approximately 7,100 square feet.


CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG: Faces Homeless' Civil Rights Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of St. Petersburg, Florida, is facing a purported
class-action lawsuit challenging the city's efforts against the
homeless, Cristina Silva at The St. Petersburg Times reports.

The suit was filed on July 20, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida by six homeless people,
namely: Anthony Catron, Charles R. Hargis, Michael Lile,
Ferdinand Lupperger, Jo Anne Reynolds, and William Shumate.  The
suit is captioned Catron et al v. City of St. Petersburg, Case
No. 8:2009-cv-00923.

Backed by a handful of advocacy organizations, the plaintiffs
accuse the city of violating the Civil Rights Act.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Catherine A. Bendor, Esq.
          National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty
          1411 K St., NW, Suite 1400
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202/638-2435
          Fax: 202/628-2737
          E-mail: cbendor@nlchp.org

              - and -

          Neil Harvey Chonin, Esq.
          Southern Legal Counsel, Inc.
          1229 NW 12th Ave
          Gainesville, FL 32601-4113
          Phone: 352-271-8890
          Fax: 352-271-8347
          E-mail: neil.chonin@southernlegal.org

               - and -

          Peter Prescott Sleasman, Esq.
          Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc.
          Suite 107 - #346, 12921 SW 1st Rd
          Newberry, FL 32669
          Phone: 352/375-2494
          Fax: 352/331-5202
          E-mail: psleasman@filsinc.org

The City of St. Petersburg is represented by:

          Joseph P. Patner, Esq.
          City Attorney's Office
          PO Box 2842
          St. Petersburg, FL 33731-2842
          Phone: 727/893-7401
          E-mail: joseph.patner@stpete.org


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Workers Appeal Dismissal of Calif. ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corp. employees are challenging the summary
dismissal of a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing the
technology company of mismanaging their 401(k) plans by
investing in its own stock, which took a dive in the wake of
reports of options backdating by CSC executives, Law360 reports.

Edwin Mills, Esq., of Stull Stull & Brody, who represents the
plaintiffs, told Law360 that the firm had filed an appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In July, Law360 reported that Judge S. James Otero of the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California granted
Computer Sciences Corp. summary judgment on all claims in the
consolidated class-action suit against the company, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Class
Action Reporter, July 17, 2009).

The company essentially won the dismissal of a class-action
lawsuit by current and former employees alleging CSC mismanaged
their 401(k) plans by imprudently investing in its own stock,
which plummeted in the wake of reports of options backdating at
the technology company, according to Law360.

On Aug. 15, 2006, a federal ERISA class-action suit involving
allegations of backdating at CSC was filed in U.S. District
Court in the Eastern District of New York, entitled Quan, et al.  
v. CSC, et al., Case No. CV 06-3927 (Class Action Reporter, June
15, 2009).

On Sept. 21, 2006, a related ERISA class-action lawsuit was
filed in the same court, entitled Gray, et al. v. CSC, et al.,
Case No. CV 06-5100.

The complaints named as defendants CSC, the CSC Retirement and
Employee Benefits Plans Committee, and various directors and
officers, and alleged various violations of the ERISA statute.

The two ERISA actions have been consolidated and, on Feb. 28,
2007, plaintiffs filed an amended ERISA class action complaint.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the district court granted a motion to transfer
the consolidated cases to the federal district court in Los
Angeles, California.  Upon arrival in the Central District of
California, the two cases were consolidated before U.S. District
Judge James Otero and docketed as Federico Quan, et al. v.
Computer Sciences Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-02398-
SJO-JWJ."

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and plaintiffs filed
their memorandum in opposition to the motion.  The plaintiffs
also filed a motion for class certification, and defendants
filed their memorandum in opposition to the motion on Aug. 11,
2008.  On Sept. 2, 2008, Judge Otero issued orders denying
defendants' motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  

The defendants have since answered the complaint and discovery
is currently proceeding.

On Nov. 13, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a new motion for class
certification and the defendants filed a memorandum in
opposition on Dec. 8, 2008.  On Dec. 29, 2008, Judge Otero
granted plaintiffs motion for class certification.

On Jan. 13, 2009, defendants filed a petition with the Ninth
Circuit pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the federal Rules, requesting
that the court of appeals accept their appeal from the order
granting class certification.  The plaintiffs filed their
opposition on Jan. 23, 2009.  The Ninth Circuit denied
defendants' request for permission to appeal on March 12, 2009.

Each of the defendants and the plaintiffs filed a motion for
summary judgment in district court on May 4, 2009.  Reply briefs
were filed on May 22, 2009, according to Computer Sciences
Corporation's May 28, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
April 3, 2009.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edwin J. Mills, Esq.
          Stull Stull and Brody
          6 East 45th Street Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-687-7230
          E-mail: emills@ssbny.com

The defendants are represented by:

          Paul Blankenstein, Esq.
          Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-955-8500
          E-mail: pblankenstein@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Deborah S. Davidson, Esq.
          Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP
          77 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-5094
          Phone: 312-324-1000
          Fax: 312-324-1001
          E-mail: ddavidson@morganlewis.com


D.A. DAVIDSON: Settles Mont. Suit Over 2007 Data Security Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Cebull of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Montana gave preliminary approval to a proposed settlement
Pinter et al v. D.A. Davidson & CO., Case No. 1:2009-cv-00059,
Clair Johnson of The Billings Gazette reports.

The class-action lawsuit was filed on May 22, 2009, by Jason
Pinter, Lowell Dennis Schafer and Angela Tate against D.A.
Davidson & Co. of Great Falls over clients' information that was
compromised by a computer hacker.

The data security breach occurred about Dec. 20, 2007, when a
D.A. Davidson database of confidential personal and financial
information of current and former clients was hacked by someone
using sophisticated techniques.  The company learned of the
problem on Jan. 16, 2008, and immediately contacted law
enforcement and other regulators and hired a forensic security
consultant to investigate, according to the Gazette.

Although D.A. Davidson was prepared notify its clients and
former clients of the breach almost immediately, it delayed
notice for several days at law enforcement's request, according
to the settlement.

The proposed settlement agreement could affect an estimated
226,000 current and former customers.  About 40 percent of the
customers, or 90,000 people, live in Montana.  A hearing for
final approval is set for Nov. 12, 2009, reports the Gazette.

The settlement is the result of more than a year of negotiations
between the parties from two initial lawsuits and the case filed
in May.

The Gazette reported that under the settlement, D.A. Davidson
will continue to make available at its own expense a credit
monitoring program that monitors customers' credit reports daily
and alerts them of indicators of possible identity theft.  So
far, nearly one-fourth of the class members, or 50,000 people,
have enrolled in the monitoring program.

The settlement also makes available up to $750,000 to reimburse
class members who can prove losses, with a limit of $10,000 per
member.  For those enrolled in the credit monitoring program,
the agreement makes up to $250,000 available for reimbursement
of expenses not covered by the program, the Gazette reports.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          John C. Heenan, Esq.
          Heenan Law Firm
          3970 Avenue D, Suite A
          Billings, MT 59102
          Phone: 406-839-9091
          Fax: 406-839-9092
          E-mail: john@heenanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Steven C. Haddon, Esq.
          Haddon Law Office
          7 West 6th, Fourth Floor
          Helena, MT 59601
          Phone: 406-457-5466
          Fax: 406-443-6589
          E-mail: shaddon@haddonlaw.com


D.A. Davidson is represented by:

          Benjamin Joseph Alke, Esq.
          Goetz Gallik & Baldwin
          PO Box 6580
          Bozeman, MT 59771-6580
          Phone: 406-587-0618
          Fax: 406-587-5144
          E-mail: balke@goetzlawfirm.com

               - and -

          J. David Jackson, Esq.
          Dorsey & Whitney
          50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
          Phone: 612-340-2600
          Fax 612-340-2868
          E-mail: jackson.j@dorsey.com


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Expects to Pay Settlement Amount in FY 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc., expects to pay a $100,000 settlement
amount during fiscal 2010 in a purported class-action suit filed
against its Red Lobster restaurant concept in a California state
court.

In July 2008, an action was filed in California state court by a
group of former Red Lobster managers alleging that the salaried
general managers of the restaurants were not paid minimum wage
for all hours worked because they were not paid for time spent
attending various seminars and conferences.

In addition, the managers claim that they were not provided with
rest and meal breaks pursuant to California law.  The complaint
seeks to have the suit certified as a class action (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 26, 2009).

Following mediation with the plaintiffs the company reached a
settlement of these claims under for approximately $100,000.  
The company accrued this amount during the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2009, and expects to pay the settlement amount during
fiscal 2010 at the completion of the settlement process,
according to the company's July 24, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended May 31, 2009.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a  
casual dining restaurant company.  The company owns and operates
the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones
Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in
the U.S. and Canada.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Mulls Deal Payment in Servers' Suit in 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc., expects to pay a $500,000 settlement
amount during fiscal 2010 in a purported class-action lawsuit
filed against its Red Lobster restaurant concept in a California
state court.

In August 2008, an action was filed in California state court by
a former Red Lobster server related to employment practices at
Red Lobster.

In general the suit is alleging that Red Lobster's scheduling
practices resulted in failure to properly pay reporting time
(minimum shift) pay as well as to pay minimum wage, to provide
itemized wage statements, and to timely pay employees upon the
termination of their employment.

The complaint seeks to have the suit certified as a class-action
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16, 2008).

Although the company believed that its policies and practices
were lawful, it reached a preliminary settlement of this matter
under which it would pay approximately $500,000 (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 26, 2009).

The company paid the settlement amount during the first quarter
of fiscal 2010 at the completion of the settlement process,
according to the company's July 24, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended May 31, 2009.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a  
casual dining restaurant company.  The company owns and operates
the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones
Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in
the U.S. and Canada.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc. pursues dismissal of a purported class-
action complaint filed by an institutional shareholder in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

On March 13, 2008, a purported class-action complaint alleging
violation of the federal securities laws was filed by an
institutional shareholder against Darden and certain of the
company's current officers, one of whom is also a director, in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The complaint, filed on behalf of all purchasers of Darden's
common stock between June 19, 2007 and Dec. 18, 2007, is
captioned Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension
Fund, et al. v. Darden Restaurants Inc., et al., Case No.
08-CV-00388.

The complaint alleges that during that period, the defendants
issued false and misleading statements in press releases and
public filings that misrepresented and failed to disclose
certain information, and that as a result, had no reasonable
basis for statements about Darden's prospects and guidance for
fiscal 2008.

The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages on behalf of
the Class (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 26, 2009).

Darden and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint.

On July 2, 2009, the magistrate judge assigned to the action
entered a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of
all claims.

On July 17, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an objection to the
Report and Recommendation with the District Court Judge,
according to Darden Restaurants, Inc.'s July 24, 2009 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2009.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a  
casual dining restaurant company.  The company owns and operates
the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones
Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in
the U.S. and Canada.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: To Defend Wage and Hour Lawsuit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc., intends to defend a purported wage and
hour class action in New York, according to the company's July
24, 2009, Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2009.

Like other restaurant chains and retail employers, in a few
states the company has been faced with allegations of purported
class-wide wage and hour violations.

In April 2009, a former Red Lobster employee filed a purported
class action in New York state court, alleging wage and hour
violations and meal and rest break practices in violation of New
York law, seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a  
casual dining restaurant company.  The company owns and operates
the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones
Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in
the U.S. and Canada.


IKANOS COMMS: Appeal in N.Y. Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of a securities fraud
class action suit filed against Ikanos Communications Inc.,
certain of its directors and officers, and two investment banks,
remains pending before the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

In November 2006, three putative class-action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the company, its directors, an executive
officer and a former executive officer.  These lawsuits allege
certain misrepresentations by the company in connection with its
initial public offering in September 2005, the follow-on
offering in March 2006, and thereafter concerning its business
and prospects.  The suits seek unspecified damages.

The lawsuits were consolidated and an amended complaint was
filed on April 24, 2007.  The amended complaint alleges the same
claims.

On June 25, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint and on March 10, 2008, the court ordered the
case dismissed with prejudice.

In March 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
reconsideration of the court's dismissal order and permission
for them to file a second amended complaint.  The defendants
opposed motion to reconsider.  The district court denied the
plaintiffs' motion to reconsider on July 9, 2008.

On Oct. 15, 2008, plaintiffs appealed the District Court's
dismissal of the amended complaint and denial of its motion for
reconsideration to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.  The parties have filed their respective briefs with
the Second Circuit and oral arguments were heard by the Court on
June 18, 2009.  The Court took the matter under submission at
the end of the hearing, according to the company's July 23, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 28, 2009.

The suit is Panther Partners Inc., et al. v. Ikanos
Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-12967-PAC, filed
before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Judge Paul A. Crotty, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173

Representing the defendant is:

         James N. Kramer, Esq. (jkramer@orrick.com)
         Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
         The Orrick Building
         405 Howard Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-773-5700
         Fax: 415-773-5759


INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Md. Court Dismisses "Vidmar" Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed
the purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit, captioned
Vidmar v. Integral Systems, Inc. et al, Case No. 8:08-cv-03387-
RWT, Lindsey Robbins at Gazette.Net reports.

The case was dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiffs
failed to serve a summons on Integral within 120 days, according
to Gazette.Net.

The lawsuit, filed on Dec. 15, 2008, claims that the satellite
systems provider made false financial statements, violated
federal Securities and Exchange Commission rules and damaged
stockholders (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12, 2009).  In the
Complaint, plaintiff Anthony Vidmar of Montgomery County,
Maryland, says Integral Systems "shocked investors" when it
announced on Dec. 10, 2008 that its unaudited financial
statements could no longer be relied on due to accounting
errors.

Integral said about $10 million in revenues would have to be
deferred as a result of the company's audit.  That day,
Integral's stock price fell from $22.42 to $15.92.  By late
December, stock was selling at about $8.90 per share.

The proposed class consists of all persons who, from April 28,
2008, to Dec. 10, 2008, purchased Integral Systems' securities
at artificially inflated prices.

Counsel for the plaintiff is:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC
          1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 1-202-408-4600
          Fax: 1-202-408-4699
          E-mail: stoll@cmht.com


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Nevada
---------------------------------------------------------------
     An International Game Technology (NYSE: IGT) investor has
filed a proposed securities fraud class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada on
behalf of purchasers of International Game Technology common
stock during the period between November 1, 2007, and October
30, 2008.

     The complaint charges IGT and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  IGT is a global gaming company that specializes in the
design, manufacture, and marketing of electronic gaming
equipment and network systems, as well as licensing and
services, in North America and internationally (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 3, 2009).

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business prospects.  According to the
complaint, defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose these
adverse facts:

       -- that defendants had diverted substantial funds to the
          development of the Company's SB and AVP gaming
          platforms, which materially compromised the Company's
          growth prospects and undermined defendants' optimistic
          statements;

       -- that IGT was unable to develop and market its SB and
          AVP gaming platforms within the time frame that
          defendants had represented to investors due to
          increasingly challenging market conditions and
          mounting costs;

       -- that defendants' positive representations concerning
          the Company's shift to non-machine based operations
          were undermined by a slowdown in the gaming industry,
          the impact of which defendants minimized; and

       -- that defendants concealed that, as a result of the
          foregoing, it was not likely that IGT would achieve or
          exceed its earnings guidance.

     As alleged in the complaint, the inflation in the price of
IGT stock came out in response to a series of disclosures by
IGT.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of IGT common stock during the Class Period.

For more details, contact:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/IGT/
          E-mail: djr@csgrr.com


JANUS CAPITAL: Faces Remaining Claims in Market Timing Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janus Capital Group, Inc., and Janus Capital Management, LLC,
continue to face the remaining claims in a consolidated lawsuit
entitled In re: Alger, Columbia, Janus, MFS, One Group, Putnam,
Allianz Dresdner, Case No. 1:04-md-15863-JFM.

Following the market timing investigations by the New York
Attorney General and the Securities and Exchange Commission in
2003, Janus and certain affiliates were named as defendants in a
consolidated lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Baltimore,
Maryland (MDL No. 1586, Case No. 04-MD-15863).  

Five amended complaints were filed in these coordinated
proceedings:

       1. claims by a putative class of Janus fund investors
          asserting claims on behalf of the investor class
          (Marini, et al. v. Janus Investment Fund, et al., U.S.
          District Court, District of Maryland, Case No. 04-
          CV-00497);  

       2. derivative claims by investors in the Janus funds
          ostensibly on behalf of the Janus funds (Steinberg et
          al. v. Janus Capital Management, LLC et al., U.S.
          District Court, District of Maryland, Case No. 04-
          CV-00518);

       3. claims on behalf of participants in the Janus 401(k)
          plan (Wangberger v. Janus Capital Group Inc., 401(k)
          Advisory Committee, et al., U.S. District Court,
          District of Maryland, Case No. JFM-05-2711);

       4. claims brought on behalf of shareholders of Janus on a     
          derivative basis against Janus' Board of Directors
          (Chasen v. Whiston, et al., U.S. District Court,
          District of Maryland, Case No. 04-MD-00855); and

       5. claims by a putative class of Janus shareholders
          asserting claims on behalf of the shareholders
          (Wiggins, et al. v. Janus Capital Group Inc., et al.,
          U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, Case No.
          04-CV-00818).

In August 2005, the U.S. District Court entered orders
dismissing most of the claims asserted against the company and
its affiliates by fund investors in the Marini and Steinberg
cases, except certain claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and under Section 36(b) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940.  

Janus' Motion for Summary Judgment requesting dismissal of the
remaining claims is currently pending.  

The U.S. District Court also entered an order dismissing all
claims in the Wiggins lawsuit.  The plaintiffs have appealed
that dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit.  That appeal is currently pending.  

In August 2006, the U.S. District Court in the Wangberger 401(k)
plan class action dismissed the action with prejudice, and the
plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit.  

In June 2008, the Fourth Circuit reversed the U.S. District
Court's order of dismissal and remanded the Wangberger case for
further proceedings.  

Finally, the U.S. District Court also dismissed the Chasen
lawsuit against Janus' Board of Directors without leave to
amend, ruling that the plaintiff had failed to make a pre-suit
demand on the Board of Directors as required by applicable state
law.  The time to appeal this dismissal has expired.  

As a result of these events, the company and Janus Capital
Management, LLC, are the remaining defendants, in some capacity,
in one or more of the remaining actions (Class Action Reporter,
July 30, 2008).

On Dec. 30, 2008, the court granted, at least in part, summary
judgment in the company's favor with respect to plaintiffs'
damage demands in the Marini and Steinberg cases as it relates
to "approved" market timing because there was no evidence that
investors suffered damages that exceed the $50 million they are
entitled to receive under the regulatory settlement.  The court
did not grant summary judgment on the remaining causes of action
and requested the parties to submit additional briefing with
respect to "unapproved" market timing.  

After the parties completed the supplemental briefing in the
Marini case, on June 12, 2009, the Court granted judgment in
Janus' favor on the remaining claims.  In July 2009, Janus
submitted additional briefing in the Steinberg case, which seeks
entry of summary judgment on the remaining claims in that case.

In May 2009, the Fourth Circuit reversed the order of dismissal
and remanded the Wiggins case back to the U.S. District Court
for further proceedings.  

As a result of the said events, the company and Janus are the
remaining defendants, in some capacity, in one or more of these
actions, according to the company's July 22, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The consolidated suit is "In re: Alger, Columbia, Janus, MFS,
One Group, Putnam, Allianz Dresdner, Case No. 1:04-md-15863-
JFM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland, Judge J. Frederick Motz, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Christopher S. Hinton, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP
          270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 1-212-545-4663
          Fax: 1-212-545-4653

Representing the company is:

          Andrew Santo Tulumello, Esq.
          (atulumello@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP
          1050 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 300
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          Phone: 1-202-955-8657     
          Fax: 1-202-467-0539


JPMORGAN CHASE: Funds Mull Joining N.Y. Suit Over Certificates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pension funds are considering joining a class-action lawsuit
against JPMorgan Chase, Fitch Group, Inc., and Moody's Investors
Service, Inc., related to transactions on mortgage pass-through
certificates, Giovanni Legorano at the Global Pensions reports.

The case -- which was removed from state court and is now
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York -- alleges the information included in the registration
statement and prospectus summaries associated with 12 JPMorgan
issuing trusts was "false and misleading," the Global Pensions
reported.

The defendants include JPMorgan, including some of its
subsidiaries and affiliates, the directors at JPMorgan, who
signed the registration statement and Fitch and Moody's, which
allegedly facilitated the sale of those certificates.

A lead plaintiff has yet to be appointed, according to the
Global Pensions.


MELT INC: Appeal to Junked California Franchisees' Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by the plaintiffs in a dismissed purported class-
action lawsuit filed on behalf of several of Melt, Inc.'s
franchisees remains pending in California.

On Sept. 19, 2007, a putative class-action lawsuit was filed
against the company, its affiliates, and its officers and
employees alleging damages and injunctive relief under state
Franchise Acts, restitution and injunctive relief under unfair
business practices act, damages and injunctive relief under the
"Cartwright" act, fraud, interference with prospective economic
advantage, and declaratory relief.

The suit, captioned David Gold, Elena Gold, EAOA, Inc., Steven
Field, MMS Management, LLC, MMS Coconut Point, LLC, Jong Han,
Yon Ho Kim, Young Suk Kim, Kang Won Lee, Yoo & Lee Enterprises,
Inc., Charindra Liyanage, Liyange Investments, LLC v. Melt,
Inc., Melt (California), Inc., Melt Franchising, LLC, Clive V.
Barwin, Brandon Barwin, Michael Zorehkey, Rick Zorehkey, Eddie
Ollman, Scott Miller, and Alin Cruz, was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
docketed as Case No. BC377783, and purports to represent a class
of the company's franchisees.

As of June 30, 2008, the court tentatively dismissed five of the
six allegations contained in the complaint.  The plaintiffs
thereafter made an application to dismiss the action in its
entirety.  The company has filed a motion for attorneys' fees
and costs.

On June 30, 2008, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit.

On Aug. 26, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.

Kang Won Lee, You & Lee Enterprises Inc, Yon Ho Kim and Young
Suk Kim have withdrawn their appeals, according to the company's
July 23, 2009, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Temecula, Calif.-based Melt Inc. -- http://www.meltgelato.com--  
operates as a holding company for its operating subsidiaries.  
Its wholly owned subsidiaries are Melt (California), Inc. and
Melt Franchising LLC.  Melt (FA) is responsible for selling
franchises to allow franchisee's to own and operate stores
trading under the name of Melt - gelato italiano, Melt - caf, &
gelato bar and Melt - gelato & crepe caf, as well as the sale
and distribution of product to franchisees, marketing and the
collection of royalties.


MELT INC: Still Faces "Jong Han" Franchise Acts Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melt, Inc. continues to face a lawsuit styled, Jong Han v. Melt,
Inc., Melt (California), Inc., Melt Franchising, LLC, Clive V.
Barwin, Brandon Barwin, Michael Zorehkey, Rick Zorehkey, Eddie
Ollman,and Alin Cruz.

On Aug. 22, 2008, Jong Han filed a Complaint against the company
similar to the purported class action suit filed on behalf of
several of Melt, Inc.'s franchisees that was dismissed by the
California court.

According to the company's Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008, Han seeks damages in an unspecified amount
and injunctive relief under state franchise acts, restitution
and injunctive relief under the unfair business practices act,
damages and relief under the Cartwright Act, fraud, interference
with prospective economic advantage, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory relief.

In October 2008, the company filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration.

On or about Dec. 8, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion
to compel arbitration.

As of April 20, 2009, no arbitration has been filed, according
to the company's July 23, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2009.

Temecula, Calif.-based Melt Inc. -- http://www.meltgelato.com--  
operates as a holding company for its operating subsidiaries.  
Its wholly owned subsidiaries are Melt (California), Inc. and
Melt Franchising LLC.  Melt (FA) is responsible for selling
franchises to allow franchisee's to own and operate stores
trading under the name of Melt - gelato italiano, Melt - caf, &
gelato bar and Melt - gelato & crepe caf, as well as the sale
and distribution of product to franchisees, marketing and the
collection of royalties.


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Remanded ERISA Lawsuit Still Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A remanded putative class action commenced against the Northrop
Grumman Pension Plan and the Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B
and their corresponding administrative committees remains
pending, according to Northrop Grumman Corporation's July 23,
2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.  

On June 22, 2007, the putative class action styled Skinner, et
al. v. Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, etc., et al., was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The putative class representatives alleged violations of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act and breaches of
fiduciary duty concerning a 2003 modification to the Northrop
Grumman Retirement Plan B.

The modification relates to the employer-funded portion of the
pension benefit available during a five-year transition period
that ended on June 30, 2008.

The plaintiffs dismissed the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, and
on March 10, 2008, the trial court granted summary judgment in
favor of all remaining defendants on all claims.

The plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals, and on May 21, 2009, the Ninth Circuit reversed the
decision of the trial court, finding that there was an ambiguity
in a 1998 summary plan description related to the employer
funded component of the pension benefit.  The Ninth Circuit
remanded the matter back to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with its ruling, according to the
company's July 23, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2009.  

Northrop Grumman Corp. -- http://www.northropgrumman.com/-- is  
an integrated enterprise consisting of businesses that cover the
entire defense spectrum, from undersea to outer space and into
cyberspace.  The company is aligned into seven segments
categorized into four primary businesses.  The Mission Systems,
Information Technology, and Technical Services segments are
presented as Information and Services.  The Integrated Systems
and Space Technology segments are presented as Aerospace.  The
Electronics and Ships segments are each presented as separate
businesses.


PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: Ill. Court Nixes Suit Over Baby-Bottle Coolers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
dismissed the purported class-action lawsuit entitled Ramos v.
Playtex Products Inc. et al., No. 1:08-cv-02703, which alleged
that Playtex Products, Inc., sold insulated baby-bottle coolers
with excessive levels of lead, according to a posting by Sean
Wajert at the Mass Tort Defense blog.

The plaintiffs in the suit alleged that the vinyl fabric from
which the coolers are constructed contains dangerous levels of
lead and that Playtex marketed these products as being safe,
despite its awareness of regulations prohibiting the use of lead
in children's products and knowing that children who ingest lead
suffer long-term injuries.  They asserted claims for violation
of the consumer fraud statutes of forty-three jurisdictions
(Count I), common law negligence (Count II), and unjust
enrichment (Count III).  In the motion papers, the negligence
claim became a medical monitoring claim, according to Mr.
Wajert.

In an order issued on July 24, 2009, however, Judge Joan
Humphrey Lefkow dismissed all counts in the consolidated
complaint without prejudice, reports Mr. Wajert.

The judge said the plaintiffs' complaint was unable to meet
pleading standards for the claims alleged.  The plaintiffs had
failed to articulate many important points, including the basis
for their claims under any consumer protection statutes other
than in New York and California.  The plaintiffs were residents
of New York and California, respectively, and neither alleged
injury in, or contact with, any jurisdiction other than New York
or California.

Additionally, the plaintiffs' claims failed to meet pleading
standards of Rule 9(b) because of the absence of numerous
crucial details, including where and from whom they purchased
the coolers, specifics regarding the presence of lead in the
products, such as where and how accessible it was, and whether
they relied on statements from Playtex about the coolers' safety
before making their purchases.  

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?40a4

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mary Jane Fait, Esq.
          Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLC
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 984-0000
          E-mail: fait@whafh.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          820 North Boulevard, Suite B
          Oak Park, IL 60301
          Phone: (708) 776-5600
          Fax: (708) 776-5601
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com

The defendants are represented by:

          Bart Thomas Murphy, Esq.
          Ice Miller LLP
          2300 Cabot Drive, Suite 455
          Lisle, IL 60532
          Phone: (630) 955-6392
          E-mail: bart.murphy@icemiller.com

               - and -

          Andrew Rothschild, Esq.
          Lewis, Rice & Fingersh
          500 North Broadway, Suite 2000
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Phone: (314) 444-7600
          E-mail: arothschild@lewisrice.com


TENNESSEE: Faces Lawsuit Seeking Recovery of "Crack Tax" Money
--------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Tennessee is facing a purported class-action suit
that seeks recover "crack tax" money, Kate Howard of The
Tennessean reports.

The suit was filed in Davidson County Chancery Court by Steven
Waters of Loudon County, who was taxed more than $55,000 after
he was caught buying a kilo of cocaine.  

The plaintiff is seeking for the return of the money plus
attorney's fees for himself and hundreds of people who paid the
tax on illegal drug purchases from the Tennessee Department of
Revenue and any other agency that collected drug tax money,
according to The Tennessean.

State law required anyone who bought illicit drugs to buy a tax
stamp for the amount of drugs they had.  If they didn't buy the
stamps, they were assessed taxes: 75 percent went to the
arresting agency, and the rest went to the Tennessee Department
of Revenue, reports The Tennessean.

The state has collected more than $10.4 million since the law
went into effect in 2005, according to the lawsuit.


TEXAS: Agency Faces Suit Over Food Stamp Applications Processing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Health and Human Services Commission is facing a
purported class-action lawsuit that accuses the agency of not
processing food stamp applications within the time required by
law, The Associated Press reports.

The Texas Legal Services Center and the National Center for Law
and Economic Justice filed the class-action lawsuit on July 31,
2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas.  The advocacy groups brought the suit on behalf of Stacy
J. Howard and Linda E. Thornberg.

Federal law requires the state to decide on food stamp
applications within 30 days, seven days for emergency food stamp
applications for families without money for food or rent,
according to The AP.

The lawsuit, which is captioned Howard et al v. Hawkins, Case
No. 1:09-cv-00577-SS, alleges that the state has failed to meet
the time constraints for more than three years.  It says that
last month, Texas processed more than a third of all food stamp
applications late, reports The Associated Press.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruce P. Bower, Esq.
          Texas Legal Services Center
          815 Brazos, Suite 1100
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: (512) 477-6000
          Fax: (512) 477-6576
          Web site: http://www.tlsc.org/

               - and -

          Lynn Edwin Sanders, Esq.
          Capitol Centre Building
          919 Congress Ave., Suite 450
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: (512) 474-5793
          Fax: (512) 474-1993


WALGREEN CO: Settles Consumer Fraud Suit Over Wal-Born Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Walgreen Co. recently settled a class action lawsuit which
gives consumers the ability to claim up to $14.97 or a free flu
shot without any proof of purchase or receipt necessary to
submit their claim.

     The class action lawsuit involves the Walgreens product
Wal-Born.  Wal-Born (also briefly sold as Wal-Borne) is the
Walgreens generic equivalent of the herbal cold remedy Airborne.  
Consumers would take Wal-Born or Airborne in the belief it helps
to help stave off colds.

     The class action (Gregory Geis and Stewart Roper v.
Walgreen Co., D. N.J., Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-4238-KSH-PS)
alleges that Walgreens made false claims regarding its Wal-Born
products to the effect that they could treat or prevent the
common cold.

For more details, contact:

          Wal-Born Settlement Administrator
          PO Box 6848
          Broomfield, CO 80021
          Phone: (202) 973-0900
          Web site: http://www.walbornrefund.com/


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GENZYME CORP: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Genzyme
Corporation (Nasdaq:GENZ) common stock during the period between
June 26, 2008 and July 21, 2009 for violations of the federal
securities laws.

     The Complaint alleges that defendants concealed
deficiencies at two of its manufacturing facilities, which
caused a shortage in one of its top-selling products (a drug
called Myozyme) and delayed approval of a new formulation of
that product (a drug known as Lumizyme).  The manufacturing
problems also forced Genzyme to halt production of two other
top-selling products (drugs called Cerezyme and Fabrazyme) due
to contamination at one of the manufacturing facilities.

     On July 22, 2009, Genzyme slashed its earnings and revenue
forecasts for 2009, including its revenue projections for
Myozyme, Cerezyme and Fabrazyme, due to the impact of the
facility shutdown.  During the class period, Genzyme's stock has
fallen over 35%, resulting in a loss of over $8 billion to
investors.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 28, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq.
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602
          E-mail: slee@brualdilawfirm.com
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


GENZYME CORP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased the common stock of Genzyme Corporation
(Nasdaq: GENZ), between June 26, 2008 and July 21, 2009,
inclusive.

     The Complaint charges Genzyme and its chief executive
officer with violations of federal securities laws.  Genzyme is
a biotechnology company which manufactures and distributes
therapeutic products for the treatment of a variety of disorders
including, among other things, rare inherited disorders, kidney
disease, and transplant and immune disease.  The Complaint
alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants failed to
disclose serious problems and operational deficiencies at two of
Genzyme's manufacturing facilities which caused a shortage of
one of the Company's products, Myozyme - a treatment for a rare
genetic disorder - and delayed approval of a new version of
Myozyme, a drug known as Lumizyme.  The manufacturing problems
also forced the Company to halt production of two of its leading
products, Cerezyme and Fabrazyme, resulting from contamination
at one of the facilities.

     In the fall of 2008, after two inspections of a Genzyme
manufacturing facility in Allston, Massachusetts, the federal
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") noted practices at the
facility that deviated from the FDA's Good Manufacturing
Practices ("GMP") standards.  Genzyme failed to promptly
disclose the FDA's observations, even though defendants knew
that the FDA would not grant marketing approval for Lumizyme
until those problems were corrected.  Also in 2008, two
instances of contamination at Genzyme manufacturing facilities -
one in Geel, Belgium, and the other at the Allston facility -
were not timely disclosed to investors even though the
contamination negatively affected Genzyme's ability to meet
consumer demand for Myozyme and eventually caused a supply
shortage of that product.

     The deficient manufacturing practices at the Allston
facility were not disclosed until June 2009 - when the Company
announced a temporary halt to production at the facility - even
though the contamination prevented Genzyme from manufacturing
sufficient quantities of Myozyme to meet demand, and prevented
the Company's first quarter 2009 earnings from meeting analysts'
expectations.

     Then, on July 22, 2009, Genzyme slashed its earnings and
revenue forecasts for 2009, including its revenue projections
for Myozyme, Cerezyme and Fabrazyme. The Complaint alleges that
as a result of defendants' failure to disclose materially
adverse information affecting the Company's business, operations
and prospects, Genzyme's stock has fallen approximately 35% from
its Class Period high after disclosure of these problems.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 28, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          Los Angeles, CA
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Stull Stull Announces Nev. Stock Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Stull, Stull & Brody announces that a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the District
of Nevada on behalf of purchasers of International Game
Technology (NYSE: IGT) common stock during the period between
November 1, 2007 and October 30, 2008.

     The complaint charges IGT and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  IGT is a global gaming company that specializes in the
design, manufacture, and marketing of electronic gaming
equipment and network systems, as well as licensing and
services, in North America and internationally.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business prospects.  According to the
complaint, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose
the following adverse facts:

       -- that defendants had diverted substantial funds to the
          development of the Company's SB and AVP gaming
          platforms, which materially compromised the Company's
          growth prospects and undermined defendants' optimistic
          statements;

       -- that IGT was unable to develop and market its SB and
          AVP gaming platforms within the time frame that
          defendants had represented to investors due to
          increasingly challenging market conditions and
          mounting costs;

       -- that defendants' positive representations concerning
          the Company's shift to non-machine based operations
          were undermined by a slowdown in the gaming industry,
          the impact of which defendants minimized; and

       -- that defendants concealed that, as a result of the
          foregoing, it was not likely that IGT would achieve or
          exceed its earnings guidance.

     As alleged in the complaint, the inflation in the price of
IGT stock came out in response to a series of disclosures by
IGT.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
all other individual and institutional investors who purchased
IGT securities between November 1, 2007 and October 30, 2008,
excluding defendants and their affiliates.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 28, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Tzivia Brody, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 1-800-337-4983
          Fax: 212-490-2022
          E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of those who
purchased the common stock of Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc
(NYSE: SKH) between May 14, 2007 and June 9, 2009, inclusive.   
Also included are those who purchased common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's Initial Public Offering.

     The Complaint charges that Skilled Healthcare and certain
of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws
by misrepresenting the true amount of its income in its IPO
Prospectus and in other SEC filings and public communications.  
In an announcement dated June 9, 2009, Skilled Healthcare
announced that the Company's prior financial statements for the
annual and quarterly periods between January 1, 2006 and March
31, 2009 should no longer be relied upon and that the Company
expected to restate those financial statements.  According to
the announcement, Skilled Healthcare discovered errors relating
to its accounting for reserves on its accounts receivable.  The
Company estimated that the cumulative charges against after-tax
earnings in the aggregate would be between $8 million and $9
million.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 22, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 215
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          E-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/skilledhealthcare/


                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.    

                            *********

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.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Gracele D. Canilao, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2009.  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  * * *