CAR_Public/090901.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 1, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 172
  
                            Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Tex. Suit Questions "No Pre-Set Spending Limit"
ANTS SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Labor-Related Suit in Calif.
BIO-ENGINEERED: Refund Claims Must be Filed by Sept. 22, 2009
BAYWOOD INT'L: Defends Suit on Failure to Disclose Lead Content
CELLCYTE GENETICS: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Wash.

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: $55 Mil. Settlement Gets Initial Okay
DICK'S SPORTING: Working to Settle FLSA Lawsuits Pending in N.Y.
DIEBOLD INC: Deal in Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit Pending
DIEBOLD INC: Appeal Ohio Securities Suit's Dismissal Pending
HARMAN INT'L: Bid to Junk Consolidated Securities Suit Pending

HARMAN INT'L: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Violations Lawsuit Pending
KEY ENERGY: "Gonzales" Labor Suit Settlement Approved in 2Q 2009
KLA-TENCOR: Awaits Final Ruling on Shareholder Suit in Delaware
MARICOPA COUNTY: Standing is Prerequisite to Class Certification
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Nov. 6

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Directors Sued for Fraud in N.Y. State Court
MOORE & ASSOCIATES: SEC Shuts Down Sham Auditing Firm
PERFORMANCE CAPITAL: Faces Suit Over Credit Reporting Violations
PERFORMANCE CAPITAL: Faces Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: Certification Hearing Coming in Sunscreen Suit

RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Three Borrower Class Action Suits Pending
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Certification Hearing Coming in Sunscreen Suit
SEARS HOLDINGS: Kmart Shareholders Appeal Nixed Securities Suit
SEARS HOLDINGS: Moldowan Suit Settlement Pending Final Approval
SEARS HOLDINGS: Awaits Summary Judgment Ruling in Merger Suit

STANFORD FINANCIAL: Outside Lawyer & Law Firm Face Class Action
STAPLES INC: Defends Pending Suits for Overtime Pay Violations
SUNOPTA INC: Consolidated Shareholder Action Pending in S.D.N.Y.
SUNOPTA INC: Talks to Settle Shareholder Suit in Canada Ongoing
TARRANT APPAREL: Settlement of Public Shareholders' Suit Pending

TORCHMARK CORP: Appeal of Max Joseph's Suit Dismissed in July
TORCHMARK CORP: Marlene Joseph's Suit v. Unit Dismissed in May
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Defending "Ethridge" Wage and Hour Lawsuit
VEDIOR NV: Shareholder Settlement Binding; Claims Due by Mar. 1

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

IMMUCOR INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Shareholder Suit in N.D. Ga.

                            *********

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Tex. Suit Questions "No Pre-Set Spending Limit"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the complaint filed in Wynne
v. American Express Company, Case No. 09-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex.)
(Ward, J.), on Aug. 27, 2009, charges that American Express
falsely advertises its charge cards have "no pre-set spending
limit."  A copy of the complaint is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/08/28/AmEx.pdf

Todd Wynne, the plaintiff, is represented by:

          Thomas M. Corea, Esq.
          Jeremy R. Wilson, Esq.
          THE COREA FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          The Renaissance Tower
          1201 Elm Street, Suite 4150
          Dallas, TX 75270
          Telephone: 214-953-3900
          Fax: 214-953-3901

             - and -

          George A. Otstott, Esq.
          Ann Jamison, Esq.
          OTSTOTT & JAMISON, P.C.
          Two Energy Square
          4849 Greenville Ave., Suite 1620
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: 214-522-9999
          Fax: 214-828-4388


ANTS SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Labor-Related Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTs Software, Inc., intends to continue defending itself in a
labor-related putative class action complaint.

On Aug. 22, 2008, a former ANTs employee, filed a putative class
action complaint for all current and former software engineers,
for failure to pay overtime wages, and failure to provide meal
breaks, among other things, in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of San Mateo.

The former employee is seeking an injunction, damages, attorneys'
fees, and penalties, according to the company's Aug. 18, 2009,
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

ANTs Software, Inc. -- http://www.ants.com/-- is developing the
Ants Compatibility Server (ACS) and develops, markets and
supports the ANTs Data Server ADS.  ACS is middleware that is
intended to offer a method to move applications from one
database to another and enable enterprises to achieve cost
efficiencies by consolidating their applications onto fewer
databases.  The company had developed technologies used in the
monitoring and management of applications and databases related
to ACS.


BIO-ENGINEERED: Refund Claims Must be Filed by Sept. 22, 2009
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition, Inc., was sued by
Plaintiffs alleging that the company made misrepresentations on
its product labels and other marketing materials with regard to
the existence of Creatine Ethyl Ester Malate ("CEM3") in its
products.

The company denies any wrongdoing or any liability whatsoever,
and no court or other entity has made any judgment or other
determination of any liability.  

The Parties have determined that it is in their best interests to
settle the Action on the terms generally discussed below in order
to avoid the expense, inconvenience and interference with ongoing
business operations of further litigation.

The Honorable James V. Selna of the United States District Court,
Central District of California, has determined that the Action
should be certified as a class action for settlement purposes
only, with Plaintiffs as the class representatives, and has
granted preliminary approval of the Settlement subject to a Final
Approval Hearing, currently scheduled for Oct. 19, 2009.

The Settlement will be distributed in the form of rebates and
refunds.  As part of the proposed Settlement, class members who
submit valid Claim Forms and proof of purchase of eligible
products are entitled to a refund check during the refund period.
Refunds of $15.00 for each CEM3 product purchased during the
Class Period, with a maximum refund limit of $30.00, will be
available to those persons who purchased an eligible BSN product
labeled as containing Creatine Ethyl Ester Malate, or CEM3,
including, but not limited to, "Cellmass", "Nitrix" and "N.O.-
XPLODE" in the United States, its territories or at any United
States military facility or exchange for personal use and not for
resale from November 6, 2003, through July 6, 2009.

Rebates will be available beginning no more than 60 days after
the Final Approval Hearing.  For a period of three years, class
members who submit a $5.00 mail-in rebate coupon from a bottle of
Cellmass or a $3.00 mail-in rebate coupon from a bottle of Nitrix
sold in the United States, its territories or at any United
States military facility or exchange for personal use and not for
resale from November 6, 2003, through July 6, 2009 can receive a
rebate check from the Claims Administrator. Additionally, for a
period of two years, class members who submit a $3.00 mail-in
rebate coupon from a bottle of N.O.-Xplode sold in the United
States, its territories or at any United States military facility
or exchange for personal use and not for resale from November 6,
2003, through July 6, 2009 can receive a rebate check from the
Claims Administrator.  With each redeemed rebate, consumers may
choose to also receive a free sample pack of either Cellmass or
N.O.-Xplode ($2.15 retail value).  Redemptions shall be capped at
$50.00 per customer per year. If, by April 30, 2010, total
redemption of the rebates does not exceed $2,500,000, BSN has
agreed to offer for 12 months a 25% discount on all direct retail
sales of any BSN product (excluding apparel, liquid beverages,
sample packs, and promotional items or programs) to all of their
customers.

Counsel for the Plaintiffs is:

          James B. Hardin, Esq.
          Call, Jensen & Ferrell
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 717-3000
          Fax: (949) 717-3100
          E-mail: jhardin@calljensen.com

Gilardi & Co. LLC has established a Web site at:

          http://www.supplementsettlement.com/

to share information about the litigation and the claims process.

The deadline to file a refund claim in this matter is Sept. 22,
2009.  Any and all claims received after such date will be late
and will be barred from participation in the refund settlement
distribution.  The rebate period will commence no later than 60
days after the Final Approval Hearing.  


BAYWOOD INT'L: Defends Suit on Failure to Disclose Lead Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baywood International, Inc., continues its defense of a class-
action suit alleging failure to disclose the amount of lead in
one of the company's products.

On Jan. 29, 2009, the company was notified that it was named as
a defendant, along with 54 other defendants, in a class action
lawsuit under California Proposition 65 for allegedly failing to
disclose the amount of lead in one of its products.

No further updates regarding the class action lawsuit were
disclosed in the company's Aug. 19, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009.

Baywood International, Inc. -- http://www.bywd.com/-- is a
nutraceutical company specializing in the development, marketing
and distribution of its own brands under the names LifeTime,
Baywood PURECHOICE, Baywood SOLUTIONS, Baywood EVOLUTION and
Complete La Femme.  The company distributes its products through
independent and chain health food stores, pharmacies, grocery
stores and other direct-to-consumer channels internationally and
domestically.


CELLCYTE GENETICS: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcyte Genetics Corp. is disputing the basis of the
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit pending before
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Three shareholder lawsuits were filed against the company:

       -- Armbruster v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et. al,
          Case No. C08-0047 (W.D. Wash.),

       -- Tolerico v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et. al.,
          Case No. C08-0163 (W.D. Wash.), and

       -- Pruitt v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et. al.,
          Case No. C08-0178 (W.D. Wash.).

Gary Reys and Ronald Berninger are also named in all three
lawsuits, and John Fluke (who was appointed to the board during
its regular quarterly board meeting held on June 1, 2007) is
named in the Tolerico lawsuit.

In July 2008, an amended complaint was filed in Armbruster v.
CellCyte, Case No. 08-cv-00047 (W.D. Wash.) (Lasnik, J.) (into
which Tolerico and Pruitt were consolidated), and Mr. Fluke was
not named a defendant in the consolidated complaint.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges, inter alia, that the
company, and its officers and directors filed misleading
statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
regarding the company's products, and that the company posted
misleading information regarding an officer on its website.

The lawsuits claim that investors purchased Cellcyte stock based
on alleged misleading statements and the plaintiffs are seeking
monetary relief.

The lawsuit has not been certified for class action status as of
Aug. 18, 2009, the date of the company's Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          1050 30th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-337-8000
          E-mail: denright@finkelsteinthompson.com

               - and -

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Keller Rohrback
          1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Phone: 206-623-1900
          Fax: 206-623-3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

Representing the defendants is:

          William Randolph Squires, III, Esq.
          Corr Cronin
          1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-625-8600
          Fax: 206-625-0900
          E-mail: rsquires@corrcronin.com


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: $55 Mil. Settlement Gets Initial Okay
------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable John F. Walter preliminarily approved the
settlement pact in Alvidres v. Countrywide Financial
Corp., Case No. 07-05810 (C.D. Calif.), at a fairness hearing
last week, Amanda Bronstad at The National Law Journal reports.  

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 12, 2009, Bank
of America Corp. agreed to pay $55 million to settle claims
of former employees of Countrywide Financial Corp., who
contended that the home lender breached its obligation to manage
their retirement funds prudently.  

Judge Walter has scheduled a final hearing for Nov. 16, 2009.

The settlement covers class members who participated in
Countrywide's retirement plan from Jan. 31, 2006, to July 1,
2008.  

The Plaintiff class is represented by:

          Lynn J. Sarko, Esq.
          Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Fax: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com


DICK'S SPORTING: Working to Settle FLSA Lawsuits Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., continues to pursue settlement of
two purported class actions that accuse it of failing to pay
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act,
according to the company's Aug. 25, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 1, 2009.

The cases are:

       -- Tamara Barrus v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. and
          Galyan's Trading Company, Inc., Case No. 05-cv-____
          (W.D.N.Y.), and

       -- Daniel Parks v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., Case No.
          05-cv-____ (W.D.N.Y.).

Because until September 2006 none of these cases were certified
as class actions, the company deemed them to be claims that were
incidental to its business.  In late-2006, a magistrate judge
conditionally certified classes for notice purposes under the
FLSA in the Barrus and Parks cases, which the court upheld.

In the Barrus case, the parties and the Court agreed to stay the
litigation pending an attempt to resolve all claims through
mediation.

Mediation sessions were held in April and August 2007.  The
parties to the Barrus case have continued to work through the
mediator's office in an effort to determine whether the matter
can be resolved through settlement.

In the Parks case, the parties and the court have also agreed to
stay the litigation pending an attempt to resolve all claims
through mediation.  A mediation session was held in March 2008,
and the parties have agreed to continue discussions to determine
whether this matter can be resolved through settlement. (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 8, 2008)

In the Barrus case, attempts to resolve the case through
settlement at mediation were unsuccessful, and litigation has
resumed.

In the Parks case, the parties reached an agreement to settle the
case on a class-wide basis, subject to court approval of the
proposed settlement.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. --
http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/-- is a full-line sporting
goods retailer that offers an assortment of brand name sporting
goods equipment, apparel and footwear in a specialty store
environment.


DIEBOLD INC: Deal in Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a consolidated class-action suit against
Diebold, Inc., alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, is pending final approval by the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Several purported class-action lawsuits were filed against the
company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, by shareholders and participants in the company's
401(k) savings plan, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties with
respect to the 401(k) plan.

These complaints seek compensatory damages in an unspecific
amount, fees and expenses related to such lawsuits and the
granting of extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief.

The suits are:

       -- McDermott v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV170
          (N.D. Ohio, filed Jan. 24, 2006).

       -- Barnett v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV361 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed Feb. 15, 2006).

       -- Farrell v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV307 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed Feb. 8, 2006).

       -- Forbes v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV324 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed Feb. 10, 2006).

       -- Gromek v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV579 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed March 14, 2006).

The McDermott, Barnett, Farrell, Forbes and Gromek cases, which
allege breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with respect to the
401(k) plan, have been consolidated into a single proceeding.

In May 2009, the company agreed to settle the 401(k) class action
litigation for $4.5 million to be paid out of the Company's
insurance policies.  The settlement is subject to final
documentation and approval of the court, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 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: Diebold ERISA Litigation, Case
No. 5:06-cv-00170-PCE (N.D. Ohio) (Economus, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John R. Climaco, Esq.
          Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli
          55 Public Square, Ste. 1950
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: 216-621-8484
          Fax: 216-771-1632
          E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056
          E-mail: mgyandoh@sbtklaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Donald L. Havermann, Esq.
          Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
          1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: 202-739-5072
          Fax: 202-739-3001
          E-mail: dhavermann@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          John M. Newman, Jr., Esq.
          Jones Day
          901 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-586-7207
          Fax: 216-579-0212
          E-mail: jmnewman@jonesday.com


DIEBOLD INC: Appeal Ohio Securities Suit's Dismissal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of In re: Diebold
Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:2005cv02873, remains pending
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Several purported class-action suits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against Diebold,
Inc., and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, alleging violations of the federal securities laws.  
These complaints seek compensatory damages in an unspecific
amount, fees and expenses related to such lawsuits and the
granting of extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief.

The lawsuits are:

       -- Konkol v. Diebold Inc., et al., No. 5:05CV2873 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed Dec. 13, 2005);

       -- Ziolkowski v. Diebold Inc., et al., No. 5:05CV2912
          (N.D. Ohio, filed Dec. 16, 2005);

       -- New Jersey Carpenter's Pension Fund v. Diebold, Inc.,
          No. 5:06CV40 (N.D. Ohio, filed Jan. 6, 2006);

       -- Rein v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV296 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed Feb. 9, 2006); and

       -- Graham v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No.5:05CV2997 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed Dec. 30, 2005).

The Konkol, Ziolkowski, New Jersey Carpenter's Pension Fund,
Rein and Graham cases, which allege violations of the federal
securities laws, have been consolidated into a single proceeding.

On Aug. 22, 2008, the court dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint in the consolidated securities litigation and entered
a judgment in favor of the defendants.

On Sept. 16, 2008, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
litigation filed a notice of appeal and asked the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to review the District Court's
order of dismissal.

No further updates were provided in the company's Aug. 7, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The consolidated suit is captioned In re: Diebold Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-cv-02873 (N.D. Ohio) (Economus, J.).

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Lauren S. Antonino, Esq.
          Chitwood Harley Harnes
          2300 Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          Fax: 404-876-4476

               - and -

          Lauren Block, Esq.  
          Milberg, Weiss & Bershad
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-631-8630
          Fax: 212-868-1229
          E-mail: lblock@milbergweiss.com

               - and -

          John R. Climaco, Esq.
          Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli
          55 Public Square, Ste. 1950
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: 216-621-8484
          Fax: 216-771-1632
          E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          John M. Newman, Jr., Esq.
          Jones Day
          901 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-586-7207
          Fax: 216-579-0212
          E-mail: jmnewman@jonesday.com


HARMAN INT'L: Bid to Junk Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit before the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia remains
pending, according to the company's Aug. 19, 2009, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

                         Kim Litigation

On Oct. 1, 2007, a purported class-action suit was filed by
Cheolan Kim against the company and certain of its officers,
seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons
who purchased the company's common stock between April 26, 2007,
and Sept. 24, 2007.

The original complaint purported to allege claims for violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about the company's financial condition
and business prospects.  It also contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the company's merger agreement
with Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., and Goldman, Sachs &
Co. was entered, there would not have been a merger deal, or it
would have been at a much lower price, and the price of the
company's common stock therefore would not have been
artificially inflated during the class period.

The plaintiffs alleged that, following the reports that the
proposed merger was not going to be completed, the price of the
company's common stock declined causing the plaintiff class
significant losses.

On Jan. 16, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which extends the class period through Jan. 11, 2008.  It
contends that, in addition to the violations alleged in the
original complaint, the company also violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 by purportedly knowingly failing to
disclose "significant problems" relating to its personal
navigation device "sales forecasts, production, pricing, and
inventory" prior to Jan. 14, 2008.

The amended complaint claims that when "Defendants revealed for
the first time on Jan. 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would
adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share
in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in the Company's
share value and additional losses to the plaintiff class.

                     Boca Raton Litigation

On Nov. 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension Plan
filed a purported class-action suit against the company and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, seeking compensatory damages and costs on
behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock
between April 26, 2007, and Sept. 24, 2007.

The allegations in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially
identical to the allegations in the original Kim complaint, and
like the original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint
alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

                         Consolidation

On Feb. 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the Kim
action with Boca Raton General Employees' Pension Plan v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al., and designated
the short caption of the consolidated action as In re Harman
International Industries Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. 07-cv-01757 (D.C.) (Roberts, J.).  That same day, the Court
ordered the administrative closing of Boca Raton Litigation.

Also on that same day, the Court appointed Arkansas Public
Retirement System as lead plaintiff and approved the law firm
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C., to serve as Lead
Counsel.

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Russell v. Harman with In re
Harman International Industries Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 07-cv-01757 (D.C.) (Roberts, J.).

On May 2, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class-
action complaint.  The consolidated complaint, which extends the
class period through Feb. 5, 2008, contends that the company and
certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 by issuing false and misleading
disclosures regarding the company's financial condition in
fiscal 2007 and fiscal 2008.

In particular, the consolidated complaint alleges that the
defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclosure material
adverse facts about MyGIG radios, PNDs and the company's capital
expenditures.

The consolidated complaint also alleges that when the company's
true financial condition became known to the market, the price
of the company's stock declined significantly, causing losses to
the plaintiff class (Class Action Reporter, June 19, 2008).

                         Motion to Dismiss

On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety.  Lead Plaintiff opposed defendants'
motion to dismiss on Sept. 2, 2008, and defendants filed a reply
in further support of their motion to dismiss on Oct. 2, 2008.
The motion is now fully briefed.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699
          E-mail: dsommers@cmht.com     

Representing the defendants is:

          Thomas F. Cullen, Esq.
          Jones Day
          51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-2105
          Phone: 202-879-3939
          E-mail: tfcullen@jonesday.com


HARMAN INT'L: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Violations Lawsuit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss Russell v. Harman International Industries,
Incorporated et al., Case No. 07-cv-02212 (D.C.) (Roberts, J.),
which alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, remains pending, according to the company's Aug.
19, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

On Dec. 7, 2007, Patrick Russell filed a purported class action
lawsuit alleging violations of ERISA in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.  The plaintiff is seeking, on
behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of the Harman
International Industries Inc. Retirement Savings Plan,
compensatory damages for losses to the Plan as well as
injunctive relief, constructive trust, restitution, and other
monetary relief.

The complaint alleges that from April 26, 2007, to the present,
the defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's
assets, thereby breaching their fiduciary duties in violation of
ERISA, by causing the Plan to invest in company stock
notwithstanding that the stock allegedly was "no longer a
prudent investment for the Participants' retirement savings."

The suit further claims that, during the Class Period, the
defendants failed to monitor the Plan fiduciaries, and failed to
provide the Plan fiduciaries with, and to disclose to Plan
participants, adverse facts regarding the company and its
businesses and prospects.

The plaintiff also contends that the defendants breached their
duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to serve the interests
of participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan with undivided
loyalty.

As a result of these alleged fiduciary breaches, the complaint
asserts that the Plan has "suffered substantial losses,
resulting in the depletion of millions of dollars of the
retirement savings and anticipated retirement income of the
Plan's Participants."

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of the case with "In re Harman
International Industries Inc. Securities Litigation" (Class
Action Reporter, June 19, 2008).

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on
Aug. 5, 2008.  The Russell Plaintiff opposed defendants' motion
to dismiss on Sept. 19, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in
further support of their motion to dismiss on Oct. 20, 2008.
The motion is now fully briefed.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          John Bucher Isbister, Esq.
          Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP
          100 East Pratt Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202-1062
          Phone: 410-752-9714
          Fax: 410-727-5460
          E-mail: jisbister@tydingslaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Thomas F. Cullen, Esq.
          Jones Day
          51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-2105
          Phone: 202-879-3939
          E-mail: tfcullen@jonesday.com


KEY ENERGY: "Gonzales" Labor Suit Settlement Approved in 2Q 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval of the settlement of a purported class-action
lawsuit against Key Energy Services, Inc., in Ventura County,
California Superior Court, alleging labor laws-related violations
was reached in the second quarter of 2009.

The suit, filed in September 2005, is captioned "Gonzales v. Key
Energy Services, Inc."  It generally alleges that the company did
not pay its hourly employees for travel time between the yard and
the wellhead and that certain employees were denied meal and rest
periods between shifts.

On Sept. 17, 2008, the Company reached an agreement in principle,
subject to court approval, to settle all claims related to this
matter for $1.2 million.

In 2005, Key Energy recorded a liability for this lawsuit, and
the resolution of this matter resulted in a recovery of a portion
of the amount that the company had previously accrued, according
to its Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Key Energy Services, Inc. -- http://www.keyenergy.com/-- is an
onshore, rig-based well servicing contractor in the U.S. that
provides a range of of well services to major oil companies and
independent oil and natural gas production companies, including
rig-based well maintenance, workover, well completion and
recompletion services, oilfield transportation services, cased-
hole electric wireline services and ancillary oilfield services,
fishing and rental services and pressure pumping services.


KLA-TENCOR: Awaits Final Ruling on Shareholder Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
A final judgment has not been entered in the Delaware Chancery
Court putative class action filed by a plaintiff claiming to be a
KLA-Tencor Corp. shareholder, according to the company's Aug. 7,
2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

As part of a derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware Chancery
Court on July 21, 2006, which has been stayed pending a ruling
on the motion to terminate a federal derivative action, a
plaintiff claiming to be a KLA-Tencor shareholder also asserted
a separate putative class action claim against the Company and
certain of its current and former directors and officers.

The plaintiff alleges that shareholders incurred damage due to
purported dilution of KLA-Tencor common stock resulting from
historical stock option granting practices.

On March 17, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed the
putative class action claim.  Plaintiff sought leave to appeal
the stay decision, and the Company opposed plaintiff's
application.  On April 14, 2009, the Chancery Court denied
plaintiff's application to appeal.  Plaintiff subsequently filed
a notice of appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court seeking to
overturn the Chancery Court's denial of the application to
appeal, which the Delaware Supreme Court denied on April 27,
2009.

KLA-Tencor Corporation -- http://www.kla-tencor.com/-- is a   
supplier of process control and yield management solutions for
the semiconductor and related microelectronics industries.  Its
products are also used in a number of other industries,
including light emitting diode (LED) and data storage
manufacturing, and solar process development and control.  The
Company's portfolio of products, services and software are
designed to help integrated circuit (IC) manufacturers manage
yield throughout the entire fabrication process, from research
and development to final volume production.  In June 2008, KLA-
Tencor completed its acquisition of ICOS Vision Systems
Corporation NV, a supplier of packaging and interconnect
inspection solutions for the semiconductor industry.  Its
offerings are categorized into four groups: Defect Inspection,
Metrology, Product related services and Software.  In October
2008, the Company acquired Microelectronic Inspection Equipment
(MIE) business unit of Vistec Semiconductor Systems.


MARICOPA COUNTY: Standing is Prerequisite to Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Grado at the East Valley Tribune reports that the Honorable
Murray Snow in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, the federal judge overseeing a racial-profiling suit
against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, won't permit it to
become a class action, for now.  Judge Snow will entertain a
request for class certification if the five plaintiffs in the
suit can demonstrate that they have standing to sue to sue the
county.  

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio views the Aug. 21 court ruling
denying class-action status in the racial-profiling lawsuit as a
major victory, Mr. Grado reports, and the sheriff issued a press
release touting the Aug. 21 ruling as a major victory.

The full story is available at:

          http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/143641


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Nov. 6
---------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte will convene a fairness hearing to
consider approval of the $72 million proposed settlement pact
resolving In re Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., Securities
Litigation, Master Docket No. C-06-06286 (N.D. Calif.), at 9:00
a.m. on Nov. 6, 2009.  

Shareholders in Marvell Technology Group Ltd. (NASDAQ: MRVL) who
purchased or acquired Marvell securities between Feb. 27, 2003,
and Oct. 2, 2006, must file their proofs of claim by Dec. 18,
2009, to participate in the $72 million settlement proposed to
resolve class action litigation that began on August 16, 2007,
against Marvell and certain of its former and current officers
and directors relating to Marvell's historic stock option
granting practices.  

Epiq Systems has established a Web site to share information
about the litigation and the claims process at:

          http://www.MarvellSecuritiesSettlement.com/

Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq., and John A. Kehoe, Esq., at Barroway
Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP, in Radnor, Pa., and Joseph C.
Kohn, Esq., and Denis F. Sheils, Esq., Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.,
in Philadelphia, Pa., represent the plaintiff class.           

Marvell Technology (NASDAQ: MRVL) -- http://www.marvell.com/--
is a global leader in the development of storage, communications
and consumer silicon solutions.  Marvell's diverse product
portfolio includes switching, transceiver, communications
controller, wireless, and storage solutions that power the
entire communications infrastructure, including enterprise,
metro, home, and storage networking. As used in this release,
the term "Marvell" refers to Marvell Technology Group Ltd., and
its subsidiaries.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Directors Sued for Fraud in N.Y. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Metropolitan
Life Insurance Co. defrauded shareholders by disseminating false
and misleading information during its demutualization process,
according to a class action complaint filed on Aug. 26, 2009, in
Waldman v. Benmosche, et al., Index No. 09602663 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
N.Y. Cty.).  A copy of the complaint is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/08/28/MetLife.pdf

Mr. Waldman is represented by:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
          ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
          One Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 212-567-1156
          Fax: 212-504-8343
          E-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com
     

MOORE & ASSOCIATES: SEC Shuts Down Sham Auditing Firm
-----------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission charged a Las Vegas-based
accountant and his auditing firm last week with securities fraud
for issuing false audit reports that failed to comply with Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board standards and were often the
product of high school graduates hired with little to no
education or experience in accounting or auditing.

The SEC alleges that Michael J. Moore and his firm Moore &
Associates Chartered issued unqualified audit reports with
deficient documentation after untrained employees conducted few
if any auditing procedures on the financial statements of their
clients.  The PCAOB has separately taken disciplinary action
against Moore and M&A, who have agreed to settle both the SEC and
the PCAOB cases without admitting or denying the allegations.

"Moore and M&A falsely stated that their audits were conducted in
accordance with PCAOB standards when in fact their audits were so
deficient that they amounted to no audits at all," said Rosalind
Tyson, Director of the SEC's Los Angeles Regional Office.  "Even
when there were red flags that a client's financial statements
were materially misstated, the firm did not perform any
meaningful audit procedures."

According to the SEC's complaint, filed in U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada, Moore and M&A issued audit reports
for more than 300 clients who consist of primarily shell or
developmental stage companies with public stock quoted on the
OTCBB or the Pink Sheets.  The SEC alleges that Moore and M&A
violated numerous auditing standards, including a failure to hire
employees with adequate technical training and proficiency.
According to the SEC's complaint, they got little to no training
on the job either.  One employee described the training she
received when hired in 2006 as "defunct" and stated that in
January 2008 an outside auditor sat with her for a week "and
taught (her) about the auditing process" and "how to verify what
is in the financial statements and do (her) job."  Another
employee also testified that she received no formal training and
instead observed other employees, saying that she "sort of
watched what they did and asked questions."

The SEC further alleges that Moore and M&A did not adequately
plan and supervise the audits, failed to exercise due
professional care, and did not obtain sufficient competent
evidence.  Despite the audit failures, M&A issued and Moore
signed audit reports falsely stating that the audits were
conducted in accordance with PCAOB Standards. By issuing and
signing these false audit reports, Moore and M&A violated the
antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Regulation S-X Rule 2-
02(b)(1).

The SEC's complaint also alleges that Moore and M&A violated
Sections 10A(a)(1) and10A(b)(1) of the Exchange Act by failing to
include audit procedures designed to detect and report likely
illegal acts. The SEC further alleges that Moore and M&A
improperly modified audit documentation in violation of
Regulation S-X Rule 2-06.

In the SEC's enforcement action, Moore and M&A agreed to disgorge
ill-gotten gains of $179,750 plus prejudgment interest of
$10,151.59, and Moore separately agreed to pay a $130,000
penalty.  Moore and M&A also agreed to be permanently enjoined
from future securities violations, and to be suspended from
appearing or practicing before the Commission as accountants.

The PCAOB simultaneously instituted and settled disciplinary
proceedings to bar Moore from being an associated person of a
registered public accounting firm and revoke M&A's registration
with the PCAOB.  In its order, the PCAOB found that Moore and M&A
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by
issuing audit reports that falsely represented that the audit had
been conducted in accordance with PCAOB standards.  The PCAOB's
order also found that M&A violated the PCAOB's quality control
standards and that Moore substantially contributed to those
failings.  In addition, the PCAOB's order found that both Moore
and M&A violated PCAOB standards and failed to cooperate with its
investigation.


PERFORMANCE CAPITAL: Faces Suit Over Credit Reporting Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed against Performance Capital
Management, LLC, et. al., on June 3, 2009, in Orange County
Superior Court in Santa Ana, California.

No class has yet been certified.

The plaintiffs claim to be persons who were members of the
certified class in the Worley v. Storage USA case filed in the
Orange County Superior Court, which was settled in 2008.

The company acquired the debt owed by the plaintiffs to Storage
USA in the latter half of 2004 and the first half of 2005.

Further, the company adds, the plaintiffs make broad, general
assertions that the company has violated the Consumer Credit
Reporting Agencies Act with respect to information about the
plaintiffs that the company furnished to consumer reporting
agencies after the settlement.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual and punitive
damages to be determined by the court, attorney's fees and court
costs.

The company relates that the lawsuit has been referred to legal
counsel and the merits of the case have not yet been determined,
according to its Aug. 18, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2009

Performance Capital Management, LLC -- http://www.pamco.net/--  
buys portfolios of charged-off credit card debt and other
delinquent receivables (such as commercial loans and auto,
secured and unsecured consumer installment loans) at an
undervalued price from federal and state banking and savings
institutions, loan agencies, and other sources.  It then works to
collect on the debt.  The company also provides collections
services for third parties.  Performance Capital Management
occasionally sells its acquisitions or portions of them to
capitalize on market conditions or to dispose of underperforming
assets.


PERFORMANCE CAPITAL: Faces Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Capital Management, LLC, faces a class action lawsuit
filed on July 9, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

No plaintiff class has yet been certified.

The plaintiff, on behalf of herself and a proposed class, makes
broad, general assertions that the company violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq., with
respect to its debt collection practices.  The plaintiffs seek
statutory and punitive damages as well as attorney's fees and
court costs.

The lawsuit has been referred to company's legal counsel and the
merits of the case have not yet been determined, according to its
Aug. 18, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Performance Capital Management, LLC -- http://www.pamco.net/--  
buys portfolios of charged-off credit card debt and other
delinquent receivables (such as commercial loans and auto,
secured and unsecured consumer installment loans) at an
undervalued price from federal and state banking and savings
institutions, loan agencies, and other sources.  It then works to
collect on the debt.  The company also provides collections
services for third parties.  Performance Capital Management
occasionally sells its acquisitions or portions of them to
capitalize on market conditions or to dispose of underperforming
assets.


PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: Certification Hearing Coming in Sunscreen Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trevor Pritchard, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
the Toronto law firm of Juroviesky and Ricci LLP is moving
forward with a proposed class-action lawsuit against Schering-
Plough Canada and Playtex Products Inc., which manufacture
Coppertone and Banana Boat-brand sunscreen in Canada, alleging
they deceived customers about the strength of their products.

A motion to certify the lawsuit will take place in the next 60
days, Mr. Juroviesky told Mr. Pritchard.

Two separate statements of claim were presented to the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in Feb. 2009 that allege Playtex and
Schering-Plough made "misleading representations to the public"
by implying the sun protection factor, or SPF, listed on their
products protects equally against all types of the sun's harmful
ultraviolet rays.  

Schering-Plough Canada spokesman Kent Hovey-Smith said the
company could not comment on the proposed class action, and would
not say whether the firm had filed a statement of defence.  Mr.
Pritchard's calls to Playtex seeking comment were not returned.

The full Canadian Press story is available at http://is.gd/2ENLb

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Henry Juroviesky, Esq.
          Juroviesky and Ricci LLP
          4950 Yonge Street, Suite 904
          Toronto, Ontario M2N 6K1 CANADA
          Telephone: (416) 481-0718
          Fax: (416) 481-1792


RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Three Borrower Class Action Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Capital, LLC, discloses in its latest filings with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is subject to
potential liability in three pending class action lawsuits:

     (A) Kessler.  

         This putative class action was consolidated for
settlement purposes with five other cases, all alleging that the
plaintiffs obtained second-lien mortgage loans from either
Community Bank of Northern Virginia or Guaranty National Bank of
Tallahassee and that they were charged interest rates and fees
violating the Pennsylvania Secondary Mortgage Loan Act.
Plaintiffs additionally claim that the banks were not the actual
lenders, but rather that the banks "rented" their banking
charters to affiliates for the purpose of facilitating the
assessment of "illegal" fees.  They further allege that the
affiliates either split the fees or kicked back the fees in
violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.  
Plaintiffs sought to hold a ResCap subsidiary liable primarily on
the basis that the subsidiary was an assignee of the mortgage
loans.  

         In December 2003, the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania gave its final approval to a
proposed $41.1 million settlement for all six cases, inclusive of
attorney fees. The settlement contemplated payment to
approximately 44,000 borrowers nationwide.  

          A group of seven plaintiffs' class action counsel
appealed the settlement in part on the grounds that the
underlying litigation did not address possible Truth in Lending
Act or Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act claims.  In
August 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
vacated the district court's approval of the settlement and
remanded the matter to the district court to determine whether
such claims were "viable." The parties and the Objectors then
briefed the issue of the "viability" of the TILA and HOEPA claims
within this particular litigation.  In July 2006, the parties
amended the proposed settlement to address the Third Circuit's
concerns, and in October 2006, the trial court held that the
purported TILA and HOEPA claims were not viable.  In November
2006, the parties filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of
the settlement, as amended.  In late March 2007, the parties and
the Objectors attended a hearing before a court-appointed
magistrate to present arguments pertaining to the fairness and
reasonableness of the proposed amended settlement.  On July 5,
2007, the magistrate issued an advisory opinion ruling that the
proposed modified settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate."  

          Following an October 9, 2007 hearing, the trial court
on January 25, 2008 entered an order: (1) certifying the
nationwide settlement class; (2) preliminarily approving the
modified settlement; and (3) ordering that the settling parties
give notice of the modified settlement to the settlement class,
along with a new right of opt-out.  

         Following the dissemination of new notice to the class,
the court held a final fairness hearing on June 30, 2008.  The
court entered its order granting final approval to the settlement
on August 15, 2008.  

         The objectors filed their notice of appeal with the
Third Circuit on August 21, 2008, which remains pending.  If the
order approving the settlement is vacated on appeal, ResCap
intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

     (B) Mitchell.

         This putative class action lawsuit was filed against a
ResCap subsidiary on July 29, 2003, in state court in Kansas
City, Missouri.  Plaintiffs assert violations of the Missouri
Second Mortgage Loan Act, Mo.R.S. Section 408.233, based on the
lenders' charging or contracting for payment of allegedly
unlawful closing costs and fees.  The relief sought includes a
refund of all allegedly illegal fees, the refund of interest
paid, and the discounted present value of interest to be paid in
the future on active loans.  The plaintiffs also seek prejudgment
interest and punitive damages.

         The ResCap subsidiary is an assignee.  The plaintiffs
contend that the subsidiary is strictly liable for the lender's
(Mortgage Capital Resources Corporation) alleged SMLA violations
pursuant to the assignee provisions of HOEPA.

         The Mitchell case involves approximately 258 Missouri
second mortgage loans made by Mortgage Capital Resources
Corporation and assigned to the subsidiary.  The Plaintiffs and
the class sought approximately $6.7 million in actual and
statutory damages plus prejudgment interest, attorney's fees and
expenses.  The plaintiff's counsel sought a contingent fee of
approximately 40% plus litigation expenses.  In addition
plaintiffs will seek prejudgment interest and punitive damages.

         The parties participated in mediation in August 2007
without success.  Mortgage Capital Resources Corporation is
currently in the process of being liquidated in a Chapter 7
bankruptcy.  The subsidiary terminated its relationship with
Mortgage Capital Resources Corporation in early May 2000.  The
case went to trial in state court in Kansas City, Missouri,
beginning on December 3, 2007.  On January 4, 2008, a jury
verdict was returned that the subsidiary pay $4.3 million in
compensatory damages and $92 million in punitive damages.  On
October 6, 2008, the trial court denied all post-trial motions
filed by defendants, including motions for new trial, judgment
not withstanding the verdicts and remittitur, denied the
defendants' motion to set aside the judgment and to decertify the
plaintiff class, and granted in part and denied in part the
plaintiffs' to amend judgment and entered a judgment dated as of
June 24, 2008.  The trial court allocated the prejudgment
interest and attorney's fees awards such that the subsidiary was
assessed pre-judgment interest in the amount of $642,066 and
statutory attorney's fees in the amount of $2,680,001.  In
addition, on October 6, 2008, the trial court ordered the
defendants to post supersedeas bonds in the total amount of
approximately $127.5 million, thereby denying the subsidiary's
motion insofar as it requested that the court apply the Missouri
statutory appeals bond cap and further denying the subsidiary's
motion insofar as it requested application of the limitation of
damages set forth in HOEPA.

         On October 14, 2008, the subsidiary filed its Notice of
Appeal and an application with the Missouri Court of Appeals to
limit the amount of the appellate bond to fifty million dollars
for all defendants, in accordance with the Missouri statutory
appeals bond cap.  The trial court reviewed the amount of the
bond, as directed by the Court of Appeals, but refused to change
the amount.  On November 3, 2008, the subsidiary posted the
required appeals bond.

         All parties have filed Notices of Intent to Appeal to
the Missouri Court of Appeals.  The Record on Appeal was filed
with the Court on January 28, 2009.  Appellant's Initial Brief
was due March 30, 2009.  All parties have filed motions regarding
the order of briefing, which has not yet been ruled upon by the
Court.  This will affect the timing of filing of briefs.

         The Court of Appeals has designated the Defendants
including the subsidiary as the Appellants.  Pursuant to the
order of the Court of Appeals, Appellants' opening briefs were
filed May 20, 2009.  Appellees' responsive briefs are due August
18, 2009.

         The subsidiary intends to continue to vigorously contest
the compensatory and punitive damage awards through the appeals
process.

     (C) Mayo.

         This case, which presents claims and issues similar to
those in Mitchell, was filed in Missouri state court in June 2008
and removed to federal court in December 2008.  This purported
class action alleges that a ResCap subsidiary violated SMLA when
they acquired second mortgage loans secured by Missouri real
estate by purchase, assignment or other means and/or serviced
such loans.  Plaintiffs seek to find defendants liable for
refunds of allegedly illegal fees and charges, a refund of all
interest paid by the borrowers and forgiveness of all interest
going forward, plus punitive damages, attorneys' fees, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs and expenses.  The ResCap
subsidiary acquired loans allegedly subject to the SMLA within
the period alleged.  All defendants have filed answers denying
wrongdoing, and discovery is in its early phases.  Though the
case is in its early stages of development, counsel anticipates
that its outcome will depend significantly on the outcome of the
Mitchell appeal.  The subsidiary intends to vigorously defend
against these claims.

Residential Capital, LLC -- https://www.rescapholdings.com/ --
is a wholly owned subsidiary of GMAC Mortgage Group, LLC, which
is a wholly owned subsidiary of GMAC LLC.  The company is real
estate finance company focused primarily on the residential real
estate market.  Its businesses include the origination,
purchase, service, sale and securitization of residential
mortgage loans.  The company conducts its operations primarily
through three operating business segments: Residential Finance
Group, Business Capital Group and International Business Group.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Certification Hearing Coming in Sunscreen Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trevor Pritchard, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
the Toronto law firm of Juroviesky and Ricci LLP is moving
forward with a proposed class-action lawsuit against Schering-
Plough Canada and Playtex Products Inc., which manufacture
Coppertone and Banana Boat-brand sunscreen in Canada, alleging
they deceived customers about the strength of their products.

A motion to certify the lawsuit will take place in the next 60
days, Mr. Juroviesky told Mr. Pritchard.

Two separate statements of claim were presented to the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in Feb. 2009 that allege Playtex and
Schering-Plough made "misleading representations to the public"
by implying the sun protection factor, or SPF, listed on their
products protects equally against all types of the sun's harmful
ultraviolet rays.  

Schering-Plough Canada spokesman Kent Hovey-Smith said the
company could not comment on the proposed class action, and would
not say whether the firm had filed a statement of defence.  Mr.
Pritchard's calls to Playtex seeking comment were not returned.

The full Canadian Press story is available at http://is.gd/2ENLb

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Henry Juroviesky, Esq.
          Juroviesky and Ricci LLP
          4950 Yonge Street, Suite 904
          Toronto, Ontario M2N 6K1 CANADA
          Telephone: (416) 481-0718
          Fax: (416) 481-1792


SEARS HOLDINGS: Kmart Shareholders Appeal Nixed Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the class action suit In re: Sears Holdings
Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-04053
(S.D.N.Y.) (Sprizzo, J.), are appealing the dismissal of the
case, according to the company's Aug. 25, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Aug. 1, 2009.

In May and July 2006, two putative class action complaints --
each naming as defendants Sears Holdings Corp. and Edward S.
Lampert -- were filed before U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of a class
of persons that sold shares of Kmart Holding Corp. stock on or
after May 6, 2003, through June 4, 2004.

Sears, Roebuck and Co. merged with Kmart which resulted in the
2004 formation of Sears Holdings.

The plaintiffs in each case allege that Kmart's Plan of
Reorganization and Disclosure Statement filed on Jan. 24, 2003,
which was amended on Feb. 25, 2003, misrepresented Kmart's
assets, particularly its real estate holdings, as evidenced by
the prices at which Kmart subsequently sold certain of its
stores in June 2004 to Home Depot and Sears.

The plaintiffs seek damages for alleged misrepresentations.

On Dec. 19, 2006, the Court consolidated the two suits and a
consolidated complaint was later filed.

On April 15, 2008, the Court denied without prejudice
defendants' motion to dismiss.  After taking some additional
discovery, defendants filed another motion to dismiss which
remains pending before the Court.  On March 17, 2009, the Court
heard arguments on the pending motion.  

After taking some additional discovery, defendants filed another
motion to dismiss.  On July 21, 2009, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss and entered a final order of
dismissal.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on Aug. 20, 2009.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-983-9330
          Fax: 212-983-9331
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Casser Gardy, Esq.  
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          440 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 110
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com

               - and -

          Geoffrey Coyle Jarvis, Esq.
          Grant & Eisenhofer, PA
          Chase Manhattan Centre
          1201 North Market Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-622-7040
          Fax: 302-622-7100
          E-mail: gjarvis@gelaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          David B. Anders, Esq.  
          Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-403-1000
          Fax: 212-403-2000
          E-mail: dbanders@wlrk.com


SEARS HOLDINGS: Moldowan Suit Settlement Pending Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final court approval of the settlement of the class-action suit,
Moldowan, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, et al., is
pending.

The company is a defendant in several lawsuits containing class-
action allegations in which the plaintiffs are current and
former hourly and salaried associates who allege various wage
and hour violations and unlawful termination practices.

The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages,
injunctive relief, or both.

Further, certain of these proceedings are in jurisdictions with
reputations for aggressive application of laws and procedures
against corporate defendants.

The Moldowan lawsuit was filed on Aug. 12, 2004, in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Sonoma, and the
plaintiffs allege that Sears failed to pay them for all hours
worked and otherwise failed to pay them correctly for work
performed in accordance with California law.  Plaintiffs seek
monetary damages in an unspecified amount, together with
attorneys' fees, interest, statutory penalties and punitive
damages.  The parties have settled the matter and the
Court has preliminarily approved the settlement.  In agreeing to
the settlement, defendants did not admit any wrongdoing and
denied committing any violation of law.  Defendants agreed to
the settlement solely to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and
expense of further protracted litigation, according to the
company's Aug. 25, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1,
2009.

Sears Holdings Corporation -- http://www.searsholdings.com/--
is the parent company of Kmart Holding Corporation and Sears,
Roebuck and Co.  The company is a broadline retailer with 2,297
full-line and 1,233 specialty retail stores in the United States
operating through Kmart and Sears and 388 full-line and
specialty retail stores in Canada operating through Sears Canada
Inc., a 73%-owned subsidiary.  During the fiscal year ended Jan.
31, 2009 (fiscal 2008), Sears Holdings Corporation operated
three business segments: Kmart, Sears Domestic and Sears Canada.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Awaits Summary Judgment Ruling in Merger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for summary judgment and decertification in Maurice
Levie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., Case No. __-cv-____
(N.D. Ill.), are pending.  This lawsuit followed Kmart's merger
into Sears on Nov. 17, 2004.  

This suit asserts claims under the federal securities laws on
behalf of a class of former Sears' stockholders against Sears,
Alan J. Lacy, Edward S. Lampert and ESL Partners, L.P. for
allegedly failing to make timely disclosure of merger discussions
during the period Sept. 9 through Nov. 16, 2004, and seeks
damages.

On July 17, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, certifying a class of
Sears' stockholders who sold shares of Sears' stock between Sept.
9, 2004 and Nov. 16, 2004, excluding short sellers who covered
their positions during the class period.

On Sept. 24, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit denied defendants' petition for leave to appeal the class
certification order.  Merits and expert discovery are concluded.  

Defendants have filed motions for summary judgment and
decertification.  Briefing on the motions is scheduled to
conclude in September 2009, with a decision tentatively scheduled
for Nov. 2, 2009, according to the company's Aug. 25, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2009.

Sears Holdings Corporation -- http://www.searsholdings.com/--
is the parent company of Kmart Holding Corporation and Sears,
Roebuck and Co.  The company is a broadline retailer with 2,297
full-line and 1,233 specialty retail stores in the United States
operating through Kmart and Sears and 388 full-line and
specialty retail stores in Canada operating through Sears Canada
Inc., a 73%-owned subsidiary.  During the fiscal year ended Jan.
31, 2009 (fiscal 2008), Sears Holdings Corporation operated
three business segments: Kmart, Sears Domestic and Sears Canada.


STANFORD FINANCIAL: Outside Lawyer & Law Firm Face Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
James M. Davis, Stanford Financial Group's former No. 2
executive, pleaded guilty last week to aiding a multibillion-
dollar Ponzi scheme and appeared to implicate Stanford's outside
lawyer, Thomas V. Sjoblom, Esq., of Proskauer Rose LLP, in a
scheme to obstruct a Securities and Exchange Commission
investigation into the firm, The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog
Newsletter reports.  

The same day that guilty plea was entered, the Law Blog relates,
several victims of the fraud filed a class-action lawsuit against
Mr. Sjoblom and his law firm.  The suit, filed in federal court
in Dallas, says Mr. Sjoblom and Proskauer Rose are liable for
$7 billion in damages for aiding and abetting Stanford's alleged
fraud.

A full-text copy of the 36-page complaint filed on Aug. 27,
2009, is available at http://is.gd/2EI1yat no charge.

                   Proskauer Rose Denies Allegations

Leigh Jones at the National Law Journal reports that Proskauer
Rose said in a statement the complaint is "legally flawed and
factually erroneous."  

"There is no basis whatsoever for any claim that Proskauer, which
functioned as defense counsel in a regulatory investigation,
bears any responsibility for the fraud allegedly inflicted upon
investors," the statement continued.  Ms. Jones coverage of this
story is available at http://is.gd/2EVw9

One of the first examples of alleged wrongdoing by Sjoblom and
Proskauer involves a 2006 fax sent to Sjoblom by Leroy King, an
Antigua banking regulator, whom prosecutors say was being
bribed by Stanford to rubber-stamp Stanford's activities, The
Wall Street Journal's Law Blog Newsletter relates.  In the fax,
King allegedly asked for Sjoblom's help in crafting a response
to a different Caribbean banking regulator who was asking about
the firm.  The lawsuit states: "Recognizing that he had already
been paid through cash bribe payments from Stanford, King
concluded the August 1, 2006, facsimile transmission with the
following handwritten words: 'Please do not bill me (laugh),
Thanks a million, Lee.'"

The plaintiffs in Troice, et al. v. Proskauer Rose, LLP, and
Thomas V. Sjoblom, Case No. 09-cv-01600 (N.D. Tex.), are
represented by:

          Edward C. Snyder, Esq.
          Jesse R. Castillo, Esq.
          CASTILLO SNYDER, P.C.
          300 Convent Street, Suite 1020
          San Antonio, Texas 78205
          Telephone: (210) 630-4200
          Facsimile: (210) 630-4210
          E-mail: esnyder@casnlaw.com
                  jcastillo@casnlaw.com


STAPLES INC: Defends Pending Suits for Overtime Pay Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Staples, Inc., continues to defend several class action lawsuits
filed in various states, where the plaintiffs allege the company
failed to comply with federal and state overtime laws and that it
failed to pay them overtime.      

The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages.

No specific details regarding the lawsuits were disclosed in the
company's Aug. 25, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1,
2009.

Staples, Inc. -- http://www.staples.com/-- is an office   
products company. The Company sells a variety of office supplies
and services, business machines and related products, computers
and related products, and office furniture.  Its product
offering includes Staples, Quill and other branded products.  


SUNOPTA INC: Consolidated Shareholder Action Pending in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
SunOpta Inc. continues to face a consolidated and amended class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of New York.  

The company and certain officers (one of whom is a director) and
a former director were named as defendants in proposed class
action lawsuits in the United States.  These lawsuits were filed
between Jan. 28, 2008, and March 19, 2008 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  These actions were
also filed against two company Officers, one of whom is a
director, as well as a former director who was named in certain
actions.

The company was alleged to have violated Section 10(b) of the
1934 Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  The named officers and
directors (one of whom is a former director) were alleged to have
violated Section 20(a) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act.  The
complaints alleged different proposed class periods. They have
now been consolidated into one class action with lead plaintiffs.

On Jan. 28, 2009, the Court appointed Western Washington
Laborers-Employers Pension Trust and Operating Engineers
Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund as the lead
plaintiffs in one consolidated class action aggregating the
various class action lawsuits.

On April 14, 2009, the lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
and amended complaint in the U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of New York.  The new complaint includes new allegations
under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 as
well as four new individual defendants, two of whom are former
senior management employees (one also a former director and
officer), one is a current director and chairman and one is
currently a senior employee.  The new complaint also added three
corporate defendants namely, Cleugh's Frozen Foods, Inc., Pacific
Fruit Processors, Inc. and Organic Ingredients, Inc., former
subsidiaries of the company, and now part of the merged
subsidiary, SunOpta Fruit Group, Inc.

All parties including the U.S. and Canadian plaintiffs, the
defendants as well as Chubb, the company's insurer, agreed to
attempt to settle the class actions through mediation.  The
mediation was held on July 8, 2009, at the JAMS New York
Resolution Center in the City of New York before a single
mediator.  No settlement has yet been reached, although the
parties are in the process of negotiation.  

All proposed actions and motions including the Canadian motion
for class certification and leave to pursue statutory claims as
well as proposed discoveries were either suspended or deferred
pending the outcome of the mediation, according to the company's
Aug. 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

SunOpta Inc. -- http://www.sunopta.com/-- has three operating   
groups: The SunOpta Food Group (Food Group), Opta Minerals Inc.
(Opta Minerals), and The SunOpta BioProcess Group.  The Food
Group accounted for approximately 89% of the Company's revenues
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.  This Group has vertically
integrated operations throughout North America.  In addition to
the SunOpta Food Group, SunOpta owns 70.4% of Opta Minerals Inc.
(Opta Minerals), formerly the Opta Minerals Group of the
Company, which produces, imports, distributes and recycles
industrial abrasives, specialty minerals and related products.
The SunOpta BioProcess Group provides process solutions for the
biomass industry from process development and design through the
sale of biomass processing technology.


SUNOPTA INC: Talks to Settle Shareholder Suit in Canada Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement negotiations are ongoing in the purported class action
suit filed against SunOpta Inc. in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, in Canada.

The proposed class action lawsuit was filed in Canada on behalf
of shareholders who acquired securities of the company between
May 8, 2007, and Jan. 25, 2008, against the company and certain
officers (one of whom is a director), alleging misrepresentation
and proposing to seek leave from the Ontario court to bring
statutory misrepresentation civil liability claims under the
Ontario Securities Act.

On Aug. 29, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend the
claims against the company to include additional allegations.

The Canadian plaintiffs claim compensatory damages of CDN100,000
and punitive damages of CDN10,000 and other monetary relief.

All parties including the U.S. and Canadian plaintiffs, the
defendants as well as Chubb, the company's insurer, agreed to
attempt to settle the class actions through mediation.  The
mediation was held on July 8, 2009, at the JAMS New York
Resolution Center in the City of New York before a single
mediator.  No settlement has yet been reached, although the
parties are in the process of negotiation.  

All proposed actions and motions including the Canadian motion
for class certification and leave to pursue statutory claims as
well as proposed discoveries were either suspended or deferred
pending the outcome of the mediation, according to the company's
Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.  

SunOpta Inc. -- http://www.sunopta.com/-- has three operating   
groups: The SunOpta Food Group (Food Group), Opta Minerals Inc.
(Opta Minerals), and The SunOpta BioProcess Group.  The Food
Group accounted for approximately 89% of the Company's revenues
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.  This Group has vertically
integrated operations throughout North America.  In addition to
the SunOpta Food Group, SunOpta owns 70.4% of Opta Minerals Inc.
(Opta Minerals), formerly the Opta Minerals Group of the
Company, which produces, imports, distributes and recycles
industrial abrasives, specialty minerals and related products.
The SunOpta BioProcess Group provides process solutions for the
biomass industry from process development and design through the
sale of biomass processing technology.


TARRANT APPAREL: Settlement of Public Shareholders' Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of the purported class action complaint
styled McMichael v. Company Apparel Group, Inc., No. BC 412320,
is pending, according to Tarrant Apparel Group's Form 8-K Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Aug. 20,
2009.

On April 22, 2009, plaintiff Anthony M. McMichael filed a
complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, against the company, its directors,
Sunrise Acquisition Company, LLC, Sunrise Merger Company.

The complaint purports to be a class action, and is brought on
behalf of the public shareholders of the company's common stock,
excluding the defendants and their affiliates.

The complaint alleges three causes of action: (i) that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
class by agreeing to sell the company using an allegedly unfair
process, resulting in an allegedly unfair price; (ii) that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties of
disclosure; and (iii) that the company, Parent and Merger Sub
aided and abetted in these breaches of fiduciary duty.

The complaint seeks to permanently enjoin the transaction,
monetary damages in an unspecified amount attributable to the
alleged breach of duties, and legal fees and expenses.

On Aug. 19, 2009, the company and the other named defendants
entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiff's
counsel regarding the proposed settlement of the Action.  The
memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval following notice to
company's shareholder, and a right to opt out.  The stipulation
of settlement will provide for a hearing at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement which, if finally approved by the court, will resolve
all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the
Action, including all claims relating to the merger, the merger
agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith.

In connection with the settlement and as provided in the
memorandum of understanding, the parties contemplate that
plaintiff's counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses in the amount of up to $200,000 as part of the
settlement, which will be paid by company (or its successor(s)-
in-interest).

The settlement will not affect the amount of the merger
consideration to be paid to company's shareholders in the merger.

Tarrant Apparel Group -- http://www.tags.com/-- is a design and  
sourcing company for private label and private brand casual
apparel serving mass merchandisers, department stores, branded
wholesalers and specialty chains located primarily in the United
States. The Company's products are manufactured in a variety of
woven and knit fabrications, and include jeans wear, casual
pants, shorts, skirts, dresses, t-shirts, shirts and other tops,
and jackets. The Company's products also include moderately
priced women's apparel in casual, non-denim fabrications, such as
twill and other cotton and cotton blends, in woven tops and
bottoms. The Company's women's apparel products include jeans
wear, casual pants, shorts, skirts, dresses, t-shirts, blouses,
shirts, other tops and jackets. The Company sells apparel
products under the American Rag Cie brand.


TORCHMARK CORP: Appeal of Max Joseph's Suit Dismissed in July
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by the plaintiffs in Max Joseph v. Liberty National
Life Insurance Company, Case No. 08-cv-20117 (S.D. Fla.)
(Martinez, J.), was dismissed in July 2009, according to
Torchmark Corporation's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2009.  

Liberty National Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of
Torchmark Corporation.

On Jan. 18, 2008, the purported class-action litigation was filed
against Liberty on behalf of all black Haitian-Americans who
reside in Florida (including both naturalized and alien persons)
and who have or have had an ownership interest in life insurance
policies sold by Liberty where it is alleged that Liberty issued
and administered such policies on a discriminatory basis because
of their race and Haitian ancestry, ethnicity or national origin.

The plaintiffs alleged an intentional plan on behalf of Liberty
to discriminate against the black Haitian-American community in
the formation, performance and termination of life insurance
contracts in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 and Section
1982 by target marketing and underwriting inquiries regarding
whether the applicant for insurance was Haitian, had traveled to
Haiti in the past or planned to do so at any time in the future
and, based upon such information, either denying the application
or issuing a substandard policy or in some instances it was
alleged, refusing to pay death benefits on issued policies.

The plaintiffs sought unspecified compensatory damages in excess
of $75,000, punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees
and other relief.

After the death of one of the named class plaintiffs and the
Court's dismissal of that plaintiff's claims without prejudice,
the remaining two class plaintiffs elected to proceed with this
litigation on an individual basis.

On Jan. 22, 2009, the Court issued an Order granting Liberty's
Motion for Summary Judgment and closing the case.  On April 20,
2009, these two individual plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
with the Court and subsequently filed a motion for extension of
time on May 11, 2009.  On May 27, 2009, the U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted these plaintiffs an
extension of time to file an initial brief.

On July 31, 2009, the Eleventh Circuit granted Liberty National's
motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction as untimely
filed.

Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries,
markets primarily individual life and supplemental health
insurance and annuities, to middle income households throughout
the U.S.  The company operates in two segments: insurance, which
includes the insurance product lines of life, health and
annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines.


TORCHMARK CORP: Marlene Joseph's Suit v. Unit Dismissed in May
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action, Marlene Joseph v. Liberty National Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 08-cv-22580 (S.D. Fla.), was
dismissed with prejudice in May 2009, according to Torchmark
Corporation's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.  

A no-opt-out class action settlement was reached in this class
litigation filed on Sept. 17, 2008.  On May 27, 2009, the
District Court entered a final order and judgment approving the
settlement agreement and dismissing this case with prejudice.  
There were no objectors to the class settlement and the final
approval order was not appealed.

Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries,
markets primarily individual life and supplemental health
insurance and annuities, to middle income households throughout
the U.S.  The company operates in two segments: insurance, which
includes the insurance product lines of life, health and
annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Defending "Ethridge" Wage and Hour Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc., is defending Ethridge v.
Universal Health Services, et. al., which has not yet been
certified as a class action by the court.

In June, 2008, the company and one of its acute care facilities,
Lancaster Community Hospital, were named as defendants in a wage
and hour lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

This is a purported class action lawsuit alleging that the
hospital failed to provide sufficient meal and break periods to
certain employees.

The company has denied liability.

Some of the issues in this lawsuit may have been settled by a
previous settlement related to a previously filed class action
wage and hour suit against the hospital, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.  

Universal Health Services, Inc. -- http://www.uhsinc.com/-- is   
engaged in owning and operating, through its subsidiaries,
acute-care hospitals, behavioral health centers, surgical
hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers and radiation oncology
centers.


VEDIOR NV: Shareholder Settlement Binding; Claims Due by Mar. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
By Order dated 15 July 2009, the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam,
the Netherlands, declared binding the collective settlement
agreement between Randstad Holding N.V., the Dutch Association of
Shareholders (Vereniging van Effectenbezitters) and the Stichting
Uitvoer Vedior Schikking foundation dated 26 September 2008, as
amended by an additional agreement dated 2 February 2009.  The
Order became irrevocable on 15 July 2009.  The Agreement was
concluded in connection with the events that took place on 30
November 2007, in which context there was an unexpected
development in the price of the shares in Vedior N.V. on the
Euronext Amsterdam stock exchange, which was accompanied by
rumours in the media about exploratory discussions between Vedior
and third parties with respect to a merger of their companies.
Vedior was merged into Randstad by deed dated 30 June 2008. As a
result, all of Vedior's rights and obligations were transferred
to Randstad. The parties that are entitled to a remuneration
under the Agreement comprise exclusively the legal entities that
and natural persons who sold Shares on 30 November 2007 between
9:00 a.m. and 11:34 a.m. by placing one or more orders in the
Euronext Amsterdam order book.  The Agreement provides that each
Entitled Party will receive an amount for each Share that he or
she sold on 30 November 2007 between 9 a.m. and 11.34 a.m., equal
to approximately 80% of the difference between the price at which
the Entitled Party sold that share on 30 November 2007 between
9:00 a.m. and 11:34 a.m. and the opening price of the Share when
trading resumed at 1:20 p.m., in the amount of EUR 15.80.
However, the total amount owed to all the Entitled Parties
jointly may not exceed the amount of EUR 4,250,000.

Obtaining Remuneration

Each Entitled Party who claims payment of a Remuneration under
that Agreement must send a written request to Randstad by fully
completing the form that has been made available at
http://www.vediorschikking.nl/and  
http://www.vediorsettlement.com/

Entitled Parties who have given notice in a timely manner within
the meaning of Article 7:908(2) and (3) of the Dutch Civil Code
(Burgerlijk Wetboek) will be deemed to have revoked their earlier
notifications if they give the written notification claiming a
Remuneration in the manner indicated above.  The written request
must:

    -- be addressed to:

       Randstad
       Attention: Mr. J. Miedema
       PO Box 12600
       1100 AP Amsterdam, the Netherlands;

    -- contain a list of the numbers of shares that the Entitled
       Party sold and the time at which each share was sold;

    -- be accompanied by a copy of bank statements or other  
       documentary evidence demonstrating the numbers of Shares
       that the Entitled Party sold and the time at which each of
       those Shares was sold;

    -- be signed by the Entitled Party;

    -- indicate the account number to which the payment must be
       transferred and all the information necessary to make
       payment (IBAN and comparable codes used for international
       payment transactions); and

    -- be received by Randstad no later than 1 March 2010.

SUVS will pay the Remuneration owed to the Entitled Party from
the Settlement Amount within three weeks after the Closing Date.
No interest will be due on the Remuneration unless the above-
mentioned term for payment has been exceeded, and in that case
only in respect of the period in which that term has been
exceeded, at the statutory interest rate provided for by law.  

Consequences of the settlement being declared binding

As a result of the Court of Appeal declaring the Agreement
binding, all Entitled Parties are bound by the Agreement.  As a
result they are entitled to claim a Remuneration, subject to the
conditions contained in the Agreement. On the other hand, they
are no longer entitled to bring a claim against Randstad
themselves in connection with the events that took place on
30 November 2007.

Possibility to opt out

These consequences do not apply in respect of any Entitled Party
who gives written notice that he or she does not wish to be bound
by the Agreement. An Entitled Party who makes such a statement
will not be bound by the Agreement, but he or she also will not
be entitled to derive any rights from it. The statement, which
must contain the name and address details, must be sent to the
civil-law notary:

          W.H. Bossenbroek
          NautaDutilh
          PO Box 7113
          1007 JC Amsterdam, the Netherlands

The Court of Appeal has set the term within which that statement
must be sent at three months after 1 September 2009, and that
term will therefore expire on 1 December 2009.

Expiry period

On the ground of the Agreement, the right to claim payment of a
Remuneration will expire one year after the commencement of the
day following the date on which the Entitled Party became aware
that that claim became due and payable.

Right to inspect, copies and information

The Agreement and the Order may be inspected at the Web site of
the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam at

   http://www.rechtspraak.nl/gerechten/gerechtshoven/Amsterdam/actualiteiten

and at the following websites, among others,
http://www.vediorsettlement.com/and  
http://www.vediorschikking.nl/and http://www.vedior.com/and  
http://www.randstad.com/and http://www.veb.net/

A hardcopy or electronic copy of those documents may be requested
free of charge from:

          Randstad
          Attention Mr. J. Miedema
          PO Box 12600
          1100 AP Amsterdam, the Netherlands
     
or by sending an e-mail to info@vediorschikking.nl

Entitled Parties may also ask to inspect those documents by
sending a written request to the Court Registry of the Trade
Division of the Court of Appeal.  A request for that purpose
should be addressed to:

          Court of Appeal of Amsterdam (Trade Division)
          Attention Ms. I. Torn
          Prinsengracht 436
          1017 KE Amsterdam, the Netherlands

quoting reference Vedior 200.015.289.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

IMMUCOR INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Shareholder Suit in N.D. Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action
last week on behalf of the City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on behalf of itself and purchasers
of Immucor, Inc. (NASDAQ:BLUD) publicly traded securities during
the period between October 19, 2005, and April 23, 2009.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from today.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Coughlin Stoia at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@csgrr.com.  If you are a member of this class, you
can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class
action online at http://www.csgrr.com/cases/immucorinc/ Any  
member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Immucor and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Immucor develops, manufactures and sells a complete line of
reagents and automated systems used primarily by hospitals,
clinical laboratories and blood banks in a number of tests
performed to detect and identify certain properties of the cell
and serum components of human blood prior to blood transfusion.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
materially misrepresented the Company's business operations.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that Immucor was
operating in violation of the federal antitrust laws of the
United States.

The complaint further alleges that on April 24, 2009, the Company
issued a press release, which stated in part: "Immucor, Inc., a
global leader in providing automated instrument-reagent systems
to the blood transfusion industry, today announced that it
received a subpoena from the United States Department of Justice,
Antitrust Division, requesting documents for the period beginning
September 1, 2000 through the present, pertaining to an
investigation of possible violations of the federal criminal
antitrust laws in the blood reagents industry. Immucor intends to
fully cooperate with the investigation."

As a result of this disclosure, Immucor's closing stock price
dropped from $20.98 on April 23, 2009 ,to $15.35 the next trading
day. This decrease in Immucor's stock price was a result of the
artificial inflation caused by defendants' misleading statements
coming out of the stock price.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Immucor publicly traded securities during the Class Period.  The
plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions
involving financial fraud.

                            *********

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 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  * * *