CAR_Public/090902.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 2, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 173
  
                            Headlines

ACCURACY INC: Lead Plaintiff Deadline is Sept. 21
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Appeal of Junked Global Warming Suit Pending
AMERICAN INT'L: Bids to Junk 2008 Securities Litigation Pending
AMERICAN INT'L: Faces Consolidated Amended ERISA Lawsuit
AMERICAN INT'L: Calif. Shareholder Suit Moved to SDNY in June

AMERICAN INT'L: Bid to File Securities Suit Pending in Ontario
AMERICAN INT'L: Fact Discovery Ongoing in Securities Fraud Suit
AMERICAN INT'L: Appeals of Junked Antitrust & RICO Suits Pending
AMERICAN INT'L: Safeco Insurance Underpayment Suit Still Stayed
AMERICAN INT'L: Suit Over Compensation Premium Reporting Pending

AMERICAN INT'L: March 2010 Certification Trial Set for Ala. Suit
BAYER GROUP: Keller Rohrback Investigates Yaz & Yasmin Drugs
BUSINESS APPLICATIONS: Drawn Into Intel Battery Life Litigation
DAN REGION ASSOCATION: Seven Cities Sued for Sewage Overcharges
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: $57.5 Mil. Q4 Charge for Canadian Class Action

EXPEDIA INC: Settlement Participants Must File Claims by Dec. 31
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Dec. Hearing Set for "Fischer" Certification
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Motion to Dismiss Market-Timing Suit Pending
HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: FCA Bid to Reverse Certification Order Denied
HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Pioneer Valley's Suit Dismissed in April 2009

IMMUCOR INC: Lead Plaintiff Request Deadline is Oct. 26
INTEL CORP: Faces 2nd Calif. Lawsuit Over Notebook Battery Life
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC: 7th Cir. Puts Special Education Suit on Hold
NATHAN'S FAMOUS: Mulls Response to Consumer Fraud Suit in N.J.
OLD MOTHER: Suit Says Pet Food Falsely Labeled "Human Grade"

PETCO ANIMAL: Suit Says Pet Food Falsely Labeled "Human Grade"
PPL MONTANA: Mont. Sup. Ct. Remands Landowner Suit to Trial Court
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Lead Plaintiff Deadline is Sept. 22
SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICAL: Sued in Minn. for Menopause Drug Deception
TIMBERCORP: 1,600 Investors Sue Three Directors in Australia

UNITED PARCEL: EEOC Files Disability Discrimination Suit

                            *********

ACCURACY INC: Lead Plaintiff Deadline is Sept. 21
-------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP reminds all persons or entities who
purchased the common stock of Accuray Incorporated (Nasdaq: ARAY)
pursuant or traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering
commencing on or about February 7, 2007, including purchasers
of the Company's common stock between February 7, 2007, and
August 19, 2008, inclusive, have until September 21, 2009, to
move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the securities fraud
class action lawsuit.  

The case filed by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP is Whitten v.
Accuray Incorporated, et al., Case No. 09-cv-03637 (N.D. Calif.)
(Walker, J.).  A copy of the Complaint is available from the
court or from Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Please contact the
Firm by phone to discuss this action or to obtain a copy of the
Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by
e-mail at info@glancylaw.com, or visit http://www.glancylaw.com/

Accuray designs, develops and sells the CyberKnife system, an
image-guided, robotic radio surgery system for the treatment of
solid tumors.  The Complaint charges Accuray and certain of its
executive officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
among other things, and further alleges that throughout the Class
Period defendants failed to disclose material adverse information
concerning Accuray's business, operations and prospects,
including that:

    (a) defendants overstated the amount of the Company's backlog
        by millions of dollars;

    (b) defendants reported as backlog a large percentage of
        contingent and non-contingent orders for the CyberKnife
        system that did not have a substantially high  
        probability of being booked as revenue;

    (c) Accuray sales personnel entered into contingent contracts
        for CyberKnife systems that did not have a substantially
        high probability of being booked as revenue;

    (d) Accuray did not have adequate internal controls and
        procedures to ensure that potential orders reported as
        backlog had a substantially high probability of being
        booked as revenue; and

    (e) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable
        basis for their positive statements about the Company's
        backlog, operations and financial condition.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 requires the
Court to appoint a "Lead Plaintiff" in this case.  Any person or
group who suffered a loss as a result of purchasing Accuray
common stock pursuant to the Company's IPO, or during the Class
Period described above, may ask the Court to be appointed as Lead
Plaintiff, but must file a motion no later than the September 21,
2009, deadline.

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP is a law firm with significant
experience in prosecuting class actions, substantial expertise in
actions involving corporate fraud, and is representing
shareholders of Accuray in this litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect
to these matters, please contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Appeal of Junked Global Warming Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has yet to rule
on the plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their purported
class action lawsuit against Allegheny Energy, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

On April 9, 2006, the company, along with numerous other
companies with coal-fired generation facilities and companies in
other industries, was named as a defendant in a class action
lawsuit in Mississippi.

On behalf of a purported class of residents and property owners
in Mississippi who were harmed by Hurricane Katrina, the named
plaintiffs allege that the emission of greenhouse gases by the
defendants contributed to global warming, thereby causing
Hurricane Katrina and plaintiffs' damages.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.

On Dec. 6, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' complaint on jurisdictional grounds and then joined a
motion filed by other defendants to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim.

At a hearing on Aug. 30, 2007, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss that the company had joined and dismissed all of the
plaintiffs' claims against all defendants.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that ruling on Sept. 17,
2007.  The case has been fully briefed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and oral argument took place on
Aug. 6, 2008.  Before a decision was issued, the parties were
notified that one of the presiding judges had disqualified
himself from participating in the decision.  Oral argument before
a new panel took place on Nov. 3, 2008, and the parties are
awaiting a decision from the Court, according to the company's
Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Allegheny Energy, Inc. -- http://www.alleghenyenergy.com/-- is  
an integrated energy business that owns and operates electric
generation facilities and delivers electric services to customers
in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia.  Allegheny
operates in two business segments: the Delivery and Services
segment, which includes Allegheny's electric transmission and
distribution (T&D) operations, and the Generation and Marketing
segment, which includes Allegheny's power generation operations.
AMERICAN INT'L: Bids to Junk 2008 Securities Litigation Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss the consolidated purported securities class
action proceeding captioned In re American International Group,
Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation are pending.

Between May 21, 2008, and Jan. 15, 2009, eight purported
securities class action complaints were filed against AIG and
certain of its current and former officers and directors, AIG's
outside auditors, and the underwriters of various securities
offerings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, alleging claims under the Exchange Act or claims under
the Securities Act of 1933.

On March 20, 2009, the Court consolidated all eight of the
purported securities class actions as In re American
International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation and
appointed the State of Michigan Retirement Systems as lead
plaintiff.

On May 19, 2009, lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2008
Securities Litigation filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of
purchasers of AIG stock during the alleged class period of March
16, 2006, through Sept. 16, 2008, and on behalf of purchasers of
various AIG securities offered pursuant to three shelf
registration statements filed on June 12, 2003, June 12, 2007,
and May 12, 2008.

The consolidated complaint alleges that defendants made
statements during the class period in press releases, AIG's
quarterly and year-end filings, during conference calls and in
various registration statements and prospectuses in connection
with the various offerings that were materially false and
misleading and that artificially inflated the price of AIG's
stock.  

The alleged false and misleading statements relate to, among
other things, unrealized market valuation losses on AIG Financial
Products Corp.'s super senior credit default swap portfolio as a
result of severe credit market disruption and AIG's securities
lending program.  

The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act.

On Aug. 5, 2009, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, 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.

American International Group, Inc. --
http://www.aigcorporate.com/-- is a holding company which,  
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in a range of insurance and
insurance-related activities in the United States and abroad.
AIG's primary activities include both General Insurance and Life
Insurance & Retirement Services operations.  Other significant
activities include Financial Services and Asset Management.  The
company operates in four segments: General Insurance, Life
Insurance & Retirement Services, Financial Services and Asset
Management.  Through these operating segments, AIG provides
insurance, financial and investment products and services to both
businesses and individuals in more than 130 countries and
jurisdictions.


AMERICAN INT'L: Faces Consolidated Amended ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., faces a consolidated amended
purported class action complaint brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.

Between June 25, 2008, and Nov. 25, 2008, AIG, certain of its
executive officers and directors, and members of AIG's Retirement
Board and Investment Committee were named as defendants in eight
purported class action complaints asserting claims on behalf of
participants in certain pension plans sponsored by AIG or its
subsidiaries.

On March 19, 2009, the Court consolidated these eight actions as
In re American International Group, Inc. ERISA Litigation II, and
appointed interim lead plaintiffs' counsel.

On June 26, 2009, lead plaintiffs' counsel filed a consolidated
amended complaint.

The action purports to be brought as a class action, on behalf of
all participants in or beneficiaries of the AIG Incentive Savings
Plan, American General Agents' and Managers' Plan, and the
CommoLoCo Plan during the period June 15, 2007 through the
present and whose participant accounts included shares of AIG's
common stock.

In the consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary
responsibilities to Plan participants and their beneficiaries
under ERISA, by continuing to offer the AIG Stock Fund as an
investment option in the Plans after it allegedly became
imprudent to do so.

The alleged ERISA violations relate to, among other things, the
defendants' purported failure to monitor and/or disclose
unrealized market valuation losses on AIGFP's super senior credit
default swap portfolio as a result of severe credit market
disruption, 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.

American International Group, Inc. --
http://www.aigcorporate.com/-- is a holding company which,  
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in a range of insurance and
insurance-related activities in the United States and abroad.
AIG's primary activities include both General Insurance and Life
Insurance & Retirement Services operations.  Other significant
activities include Financial Services and Asset Management.  The
company operates in four segments: General Insurance, Life
Insurance & Retirement Services, Financial Services and Asset
Management.  Through these operating segments, AIG provides
insurance, financial and investment products and services to both
businesses and individuals in more than 130 countries and
jurisdictions.


AMERICAN INT'L: Calif. Shareholder Suit Moved to SDNY in June
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported derivative and class action complaint against
American International Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California was transferred to the
Southern District of New York in June 2009, 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.  

On March 26, 2009, the complaint was filed in California
purporting to assert claims on behalf of nominal defendant AIG
and its shareholders against certain current and former officers
and directors of AIG.

The claims relate to losses suffered by AIG and its shareholders
as a result of AIG's alleged exposure to risks related to the
subprime mortgage market in its credit default swap portfolio,
and to AIGFP employee retention arrangements.

Plaintiffs also allege that defendants misrepresented and omitted
material facts during the alleged class period, Dec. 8, 2000, to
the present, relating to AIG's consolidated financial condition
regarding the true size and scope and the nature of AIG's
exposure to risk.

The complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, gross
mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and
violations of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act of 1934.

On May 15, 2009, defendants moved to stay, dismiss or transfer
the action.

On June 5, 2009, the Court granted the motion and ordered the
action transferred to the Southern District of New York for
consolidation with the consolidated federal actions.

American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aigcorporate.com
-- is a holding company which, through its subsidiaries, is
engaged in a range of insurance and insurance-related activities
in the United States and abroad. AIG's primary activities include
both General Insurance and Life Insurance & Retirement Services
operations.  Other significant activities include Financial
Services and Asset Management.  The company operates in four
segments: General Insurance, Life Insurance & Retirement
Services, Financial Services and Asset Management.  Through these
operating segments, AIG provides insurance, financial and
investment products and services to both businesses and
individuals in more than 130 countries and jurisdictions.


AMERICAN INT'L: Bid to File Securities Suit Pending in Ontario
--------------------------------------------------------------
An application for leave to bring a purported securities fraud
class action against American International Group, Inc., is
pending in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The application was filed on Nov. 13, 2008, against AIG, AIG
Financial Products Corp., certain of AIG's current and former
officers and directors, and the former Chief Executive Officer of
AIGFP.

The proposed statement of claim would assert a class period of
Nov. 10, 2006, through Sept. 16, 2008, and would allege that
during this period defendants made false and misleading
statements and omissions in quarterly and annual reports and
during oral presentations in violation of the Ontario Securities
Act.

On April 17, 2009, defendants filed a motion record in support of
their motion to stay or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and
forum non conveniens.  Plaintiffs are opposing that motion,
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.

American International Group, Inc. --
http://www.aigcorporate.com/-- is a holding company which,  
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in a range of insurance and
insurance-related activities in the United States and abroad.
AIG's primary activities include both General Insurance and Life
Insurance & Retirement Services operations.  Other significant
activities include Financial Services and Asset Management.  The
company operates in four segments: General Insurance, Life
Insurance & Retirement Services, Financial Services and Asset
Management.  Through these operating segments, AIG provides
insurance, financial and investment products and services to both
businesses and individuals in more than 130 countries and
jurisdictions.


AMERICAN INT'L: Fact Discovery Ongoing in Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fact discovery is ongoing in a consolidated putative securities
fraud class action suit as In re American International Group,
Inc., Securities Litigation.

Beginning in October 2004, a number of putative securities fraud
class action suits were filed in the Southern District of New
York against AIG and consolidated as In re American International
Group, Inc., Securities Litigation.

Subsequently, a separate, though similar, securities fraud action
was also brought against AIG by certain Florida pension funds.

The lead plaintiff in the class action is a group of public
retirement systems and pension funds benefiting Ohio state
employees, suing on behalf of themselves and all purchasers of
AIG's publicly traded securities between Oct. 28, 1999, and April
1, 2005.

The named defendants are AIG and a number of present and former
AIG officers and directors, as well as Starr, SICO, General
Reinsurance Corporation, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, among
others.

The lead plaintiff alleges, among other things, that AIG: (1)
concealed that it engaged in anti-competitive conduct through
alleged payment of contingent commissions to brokers and
participation in illegal bid-rigging; (2) concealed that it used
"income smoothing" products and other techniques to inflate its
earnings; (3) concealed that it marketed and sold "income
smoothing" insurance products to other companies; and (4) misled
investors about the scope of government investigations. In
addition, the lead plaintiff alleges that AIG's former Chief
Executive Officer, Maurice R. Greenberg, manipulated AIG's stock
price.  

The lead plaintiff asserts claims for violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, and Section 20A of the Exchange Act.

In April 2006, the court denied the defendants' motions to
dismiss the second amended class action complaint and the Florida
complaint.

In December 2006, a third amended class action complaint was
filed, which does not differ substantially from the prior
complaint.

On Feb. 20, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  The motion remains pending, 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.

American International Group, Inc. --
http://www.aigcorporate.com/-- is a holding company which,  
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in a range of insurance and
insurance-related activities in the United States and abroad.
AIG's primary activities include both General Insurance and Life
Insurance & Retirement Services operations.  Other significant
activities include Financial Services and Asset Management.  The
company operates in four segments: General Insurance, Life
Insurance & Retirement Services, Financial Services and Asset
Management.  Through these operating segments, AIG provides
insurance, financial and investment products and services to both
businesses and individuals in more than 130 countries and
jurisdictions.


AMERICAN INT'L: Appeals of Junked Antitrust & RICO Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeals from the dismissal of two consolidated class
action complaints against American International Group, Inc.,
over alleged antitrust and Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations violations are pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

Commencing in 2004, policyholders brought multiple federal
antitrust and RICO class actions in jurisdictions across the
nation against insurers and brokers, including AIG and a number
of its subsidiaries, alleging that the insurers and brokers
engaged in a broad conspiracy to allocate customers, steer
business, and rig bids.  

These actions, including 24 complaints filed in different federal
courts naming AIG or an AIG subsidiary as a defendant, were
consolidated by the judicial panel on multi-district litigation
and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

The consolidated actions have proceeded in that court in two
parallel actions, In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation
and In re Employee Benefit Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation.

The plaintiffs in the Commercial Complaint are a group of
corporations, individuals and public entities that contracted
with the broker defendants for the provision of insurance
brokerage services for a variety of insurance needs.  The broker
defendants are alleged to have placed insurance coverage on the
plaintiffs' behalf with a number of insurance companies named as
defendants, including AIG subsidiaries.  The Commercial Complaint
also named various brokers and other insurers as defendants
(three of which have since settled).  The Commercial Complaint
alleges, among other things, that defendants engaged in a
widespread conspiracy to allocate customers through bid-rigging
and steering practices.  Plaintiffs assert that the defendants
violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, and the antitrust laws
of 48 states and the District of Columbia, and are liable under
common law breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment
theories.  Plaintiffs seek treble damages plus interest and
attorneys' fees as a result of the alleged RICO and Sherman
Antitrust Act violations.

The plaintiffs in the Employee Benefits Complaint are a group of
individual employees and corporate and municipal employers
alleging claims on behalf of two separate nationwide purported
classes: an employee class and an employer class that acquired
insurance products from the defendants from Jan. 1, 1998, to Dec.
31, 2004.  The Employee Benefits Complaint names AIG, as well as
various other brokers and insurers, as defendants.  The
activities alleged in the Employee Benefits Complaint, with
certain exceptions, track the allegations made in the Commercial
Complaint.

The Court in connection with the Commercial Complaint granted
(without leave to amend) defendants' motions to dismiss the
federal antitrust on Aug. 31, 2007, and RICO claims on Sept. 28,
2007.  The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over the state law claims in the Commercial Complaint and
therefore dismissed it in its entirety.  

On Jan. 14, 2008, the court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment on the ERISA claims in the Employee Benefits
Complaint and subsequently dismissed the remaining state law
claims without prejudice, thereby dismissing the Employee
Benefits Complaint in its entirety.  

On Feb. 12, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit with respect to the
dismissal of the Employee Benefits Complaint.  Plaintiffs
previously appealed the dismissal of the Commercial Complaint to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Oct. 10, 2007.  
Both appeals are fully briefed and oral argument in both appeals
was held on April 21, 2009, 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

American International Group, Inc. --
http://www.aigcorporate.com/-- is a holding company which,  
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in a range of insurance and
insurance-related activities in the United States and abroad.
AIG's primary activities include both General Insurance and Life
Insurance & Retirement Services operations.  Other significant
activities include Financial Services and Asset Management.  The
company operates in four segments: General Insurance, Life
Insurance & Retirement Services, Financial Services and Asset
Management.  Through these operating segments, AIG provides
insurance, financial and investment products and services to both
businesses and individuals in more than 130 countries and
jurisdictions.


AMERICAN INT'L: Safeco Insurance Underpayment Suit Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Safeco Insurance Company of America and Ohio Casualty Insurance
Company's purported class action complaint against American
International Group, Inc., and certain of its subsidiaries
remains stayed.

On May 24, 2007, the National Workers' Compensation Reinsurance
Pool, on behalf of its participant members, filed a lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against AIG with respect to the underpayment by AIG of its
residual market assessments for workers' compensation insurance.

On April 1, 2009, Safeco Insurance filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf
of a purported class of all NWCRP participant members, against
AIG and certain of its subsidiaries with respect to the
underpayment by AIG of its residual market assessments for
workers' compensation insurance.

The complaint is styled as an "alternative complaint," should the
court grant AIG's motion to dismiss the NWCRP lawsuit for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.

The allegations in the class action complaint are substantially
similar to those filed by the NWCRP, but the complaint names
former AIG executives as defendants and asserts a Racketeering
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim against those
executives.

On April 9, 2009, the Court stayed the case pending disposition
of AIG's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction in the NWCRP lawsuit, 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.

American International Group, Inc. --
http://www.aigcorporate.com/-- is a holding company which,  
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in a range of insurance and
insurance-related activities in the United States and abroad.
AIG's primary activities include both General Insurance and Life
Insurance & Retirement Services operations.  Other significant
activities include Financial Services and Asset Management.  The
company operates in four segments: General Insurance, Life
Insurance & Retirement Services, Financial Services and Asset
Management.  Through these operating segments, AIG provides
insurance, financial and investment products and services to both
businesses and individuals in more than 130 countries and
jurisdictions.


AMERICAN INT'L: Suit Over Compensation Premium Reporting Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., continues to face remaining
claims in a class action lawsuit over the alleged underreporting
of workers' compensation premiums.

A purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina on Jan. 25, 2008, against AIG and
certain of its subsidiaries, on behalf of a class of employers
that obtained workers' compensation insurance from AIG companies
and allegedly paid inflated premiums as a result of AIG's alleged
underreporting of workers' compensation premiums.

An amended complaint was filed on March 24, 2008, and AIG filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 21, 2008.

On July 8, 2008, the court granted AIG's motion to dismiss all
claims without prejudice and granted plaintiff leave to refile
subject to certain conditions. Plaintiffs filed their second
amended complaint on July 22, 2008.

AIG moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on Aug. 22,
2008.  

On March 27, 2009, the court granted AIG's motion to dismiss all
claims related to pre-2001 policies and all claims against two
AIG subsidiaries but denied the motion to dismiss as to claims
against AIG and the remaining subsidiaries.  The court also
granted AIG's motion to strike certain allegations from the
complaint, including allegations relating to AIG's alleged
underreporting of workers' compensation premiums.

Limited discovery related to AIG's filed-rate doctrine defense
was conducted and certain legal issues related to that defense
have been certified to the South Carolina Supreme Court for
determination.  However, this action no longer involves
allegations of underreporting of workers' compensation premiums
and no longer relates to the regulatory settlements and
litigation concerning those issues, 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.

American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aigcorporate.com
-- is a holding company which, through its subsidiaries, is
engaged in a range of insurance and insurance-related activities
in the United States and abroad. AIG's primary activities include
both General Insurance and Life Insurance & Retirement Services
operations.  Other significant activities include Financial
Services and Asset Management.  The company operates in four
segments: General Insurance, Life Insurance & Retirement
Services, Financial Services and Asset Management.  Through these
operating segments, AIG provides insurance, financial and
investment products and services to both businesses and
individuals in more than 130 countries and jurisdictions.


AMERICAN INT'L: March 2010 Certification Trial Set for Ala. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A March 2010 class certification hearing has been set for a
putative class action against American International Group, Inc.
and certain of its subsidiaries in Alabama.

AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in
two putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise
out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation
involving Caremark Rx, Inc.

The plaintiffs in the second-filed action have intervened in the
first-filed action, and the second-filed action has been
dismissed.

An excess policy issued by a subsidiary of AIG with respect to
the 1999 litigation was expressly stated to be without limit of
liability.

In the current actions, plaintiffs allege that the judge
approving the 1999 settlement was misled as to the extent of
available insurance coverage and would not have approved the
settlement had he known of the existence and unlimited nature of
the excess policy.  

They further allege that AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are
liable for fraud and suppression for misrepresenting and
concealing the nature and extent of coverage.

At a class action scheduling conference held on April 14, 2009,
the Court established a schedule for class action discovery that
will lead to a hearing on class certification in March 2010.  The
parties are presently engaged in class discovery, according to
the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended
June 30, 2009.

American International Group, Inc. --
http://www.aigcorporate.com/-- is a holding company which,  
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in a range of insurance and
insurance-related activities in the United States and abroad.
AIG's primary activities include both General Insurance and Life
Insurance & Retirement Services operations.  Other significant
activities include Financial Services and Asset Management.  The
company operates in four segments: General Insurance, Life
Insurance & Retirement Services, Financial Services and Asset
Management.  Through these operating segments, AIG provides
insurance, financial and investment products and services to both
businesses and individuals in more than 130 countries and
jurisdictions.


BAYER GROUP: Keller Rohrback Investigates Yaz & Yasmin Drugs
------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. has commenced an investigation of the
once-a-day birth controls pills Yaz and Yasmin, both products of
the Bayer Group (BAYZF).  These birth control pills have been
linked to serious and dangerous side-effects, including, but not
limited to the following: Pulmonary embolism; Blood clot;
Gallbladder disease; Deep vein thrombosis; and Heart attack.

If you or someone you know has been seriously harmed as a result
of taking Yaz or Yasmin, or you would like additional information
regarding this investigation, please contact Mike Woerner, Esq.,
at (800) 776-6044 or via e-mail at info@kellerrohrback.com.

Keller Rohrback L.L.P. has successfully represented hundreds of
clients injured by prescription drugs such as Fen-Phen, Baycol,
and Vioxx.  The Firm says its Complex Litigation Group is proud
to offer its expertise in personal injury cases to clients
nationwide.  Keller Rohrback's trial lawyers have obtained
judgments and settlements on behalf of clients in excess of seven
billion dollars.


BUSINESS APPLICATIONS: Drawn Into Intel Battery Life Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
C. Shanti at TG Daily reports that another lawsuit, Glassman v.
Intel Corp., Case No. 09-cv-03926 (N.D. Calif.), has been filed
against Intel Corp. and, this time, names benchmarking firm
Business Applications Performance Corporation as a co-defendant.  
The lawsuit alleges Intel's use of Bapco's MobileMark 2007
benchmark software misleads people about the battery life of a
notebook computer.  This new lawsuit claims "Intel knows or
should have known that its battery life claims did not provide an
accurate indication as to the battery life a consumer could
expect.  Intel failed to inform customers that the testing was
conducted under conditions which were far from how an actual user
would actually use the computer."  

"In addition," the complaint says, "Intel failed to inform
consumers that the basis for their battery life claims was
created by defendant Bapco, a consortium whose members are
computer makers and other technology companies."

On June 26, 2009, a purported class-action lawsuit, Mendez v.
Intel Corporation, Case No. 09-cv-02889 (N.D. Calif.) (Ware, J.),
claiming that Intel Corp. is improperly capitalizing on
customers' willingness to pay for extra laptop battery life by
"designing a program to inflate battery life measurements for
laptops with Intel processors was filed against the chipmaker
(but not Bapco).

Aaron Glassman, Desseret Funderburk, and Valentine Anderson, the
plaintiffs in the latest lawsuit, are represented by:

          Mario Man-Lung Choi, Esq.
          Linda M. Fong, Esq.
          Laurence D King, Esq.
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-772-4700
          Fax: 415-772-4707
          E-mail: mchoi@kaplanfox.com
                  lfong@kaplanfox.com
                  lking@kaplanfox.com

Esmeralda Mendez, the plaintiff in the first lawsuit, is
represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-981-4800
          Fax: 415-981-4846
          E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Austin P. Tighe, Jr., Esq.
          Feazell & Tighe LLP
          Bridgepoint 2, Suite 220
          6300 Brigepoint Parkway
          Austin, TX 78730
          Phone: 512-372-8100
          Fax: 512-372-8140
          E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com

Intel Corp. is represented by:

          Richard John Zuromski, Jr., Esq.
          Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center, Ste. 3800
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5974
          Telephone: 415-984-6463
          Fax: 415-984-2698
          E-mail: richard.Zuromski@skadden.com


DAN REGION ASSOCATION: Seven Cities Sued for Sewage Overcharges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nurit Roth at Haaretz.com, the online edition of Haaretz
Newspaper in Israel, reports that seven cities have been hit with
a class action motion for allegedly overcharging their citizens
for sewage services.  The Administrative Court of Tel Aviv agreed
to allow the NIS 80 million suit to proceed against the
municipalities of Tel Aviv, Petah Tikva, Ramat Gan, Givatayim,
Holon, Bat Yam and Bnei Brak.  

The five plaintiffs, represented by Rafael Levy Avshalom, said
that the "sewage charges" the cities collect are supposedly
intended for The Dan Region Association of Towns -- Sanitation
and Waste Disposal, a state-owned company responsible for
installing and maintaining sewage infrastructure.

But in fact, they claimed, the cities only passed part of the
money on to the association. Therefore, the cities should return
the rest of the money to the residents.

For years, the municipalities broke the law and thereby accrued
surplus payments of tens of millions of shekels, the plaintiffs
said. They calculated that from 2004 to 2006, the seven errant
cities illegally accrued more than NIS 80 million.

Tel Aviv is the worst offender, they claimed, having kept back
NIS 45.8 million. Bat Yam is also no angel of propriety, with an
alleged surplus of NIS 6.2 million, while Holon helped itself to
NIS 8.8 million. Bnei Brak, one of the poorest cities in Israel,
held back NIS 2 million, while better-off Ramat Gan kept NIS 8.7
million. Givatayim stands accused of keeping NIS 2.8 million and
Petah Tikva, NIS 6.1 million.

The cities and the Dan Region association argued that any surplus
accrued was temporary. The money, they explained, was slated to
be given to the association over the course of several years, to
pay for various projects. The cities' representatives firmly
denied any attempt to flesh out their coffers at the citizens'
expense.

However, Mr. Roth relates, Judge Amiram Binyamini said the cities
were not entitled to hang onto the money as they saw fit, and had
simply ignored the law governing the collection of sewage fees.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: $57.5 Mil. Q4 Charge for Canadian Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp (NASDAQ: DLLR) recorded a charge $57.5
million charge associated with its long-standing Canadian class
action litigation against earnings during its fiscal fourth
quarter and fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 23, 2009, the
proposed settlement of an Ontario class action litigation
against National Money Mart Company and Dollar Financial Group,
Inc., each a wholly-owned direct or indirect subsidiary of
Dollar Financial Corp., is pending final court approval.

On June 5, 2009, National Money Mart and Dollar Financial Group
entered into a Summary Settlement Agreement providing for the
settlement of their outstanding Ontario class action litigation,
in which the plaintiffs claimed that the business model used by
National Money Mart resulted in the collection of fees in excess
of the statutory limit for the payday loans made since 1997 to a
group of National Money Mart's customers.  The settlement
requires final Court approval and there can be no assurance that
the settlement will receive such approval.  The settlement does
not reflect any admission of wrongdoing by the defendants.

The Summary Settlement Agreement includes:

1. Periodic payments over the next two years aggregating
   CDN27.5 million in cash; this consists of:

   a. CDN7.5 million paid to Plaintiff's counsel in trust upon
      signing the Summary Settlement Agreement:

   b. CDN2.5 million upon final approval of the settlement by
      the Court;

   c. CDN10.0 million to be paid on July 15, 2010; and

   d. CDN7.5 million to be remitted on July 15, 2011.

2. National Money Mart will release approximately CDN43.0

   million of defaulted indebtedness of class members that has
   built up since 1997, and which is still outstanding as of the
   date the settlement is approved by the Court. National Money
   Mart will take steps to notify all such class members that, as
   a result of this defaulted debt amnesty program, they will be
   returned to a status in good standing at any National Money
   Mart location throughout Canada.

3. National Money Mart will provide CDN30.0 million in
   transaction credits for this broad group of customers, which
   can be applied in CDN5.00 increments to future product
   transactions on most of National Money Mart's products.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are
typically service sector individuals who require basic financial
services but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility,
purchase some or all of their financial services from the
Company rather than from banks and other financial institutions.
To meet the needs of these customers, the Company provides a
range of consumer financial products and services primarily
consisting of check cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn
lending, Western Union money order and money transfer products,
currency exchange, reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded
debit cards, electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


EXPEDIA INC: Settlement Participants Must File Claims by Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Garden City Group, Inc., has set up a Web site at:

          http://www.ServiceFeesSettlement.com/

to share information and handle on-line claim processing in
connection with the $123.4 million proposed settlement on behalf
of a nationwide class of consumers who booked hotel stays through
Expedia from January 10, 2001, through June 11, 2008, and paid a
Tax Recovery Charge and a Service Fee, in the consolidated
proceeding captioned In re Expedia Taxes and Fees Litigation,
Master File No. 05-2-02060-1 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty.).

Class members who want to participate in the settlement have two
options:

     (1) MAKE A CASH ELECTION: You will need to complete and
         electronically submit the Expedia Cash Election Form at:

         https://cert.gardencitygroup.com/eht/fs/cashElection?lang=en

         no later than December 31, 2009, in order to receive a
         cash payment; or

     (2) RECEIVE EXPEDIA SETTLEMENT CREDIT: Automatically receive
         Expedia Settlement Credit of approximately 2.17 times
         the amount you would receive in cash.  Even if you
         choose to receive Expedia Settlement Credit, you are
         urged to complete and electronically submit the Expedia
         Settlement Credit Verification Form at:

         https://cert.gardencitygroup.com/eht/fs/creditVerification?lang=en

         to ensure you receive all you are entitled to.

Requests for exclusion from the Class must be filed by Nov. 11,
2009.  

A Final Approval hearing will be held on Dec. 1, 2009, at 10:00
a.m., before the Honorable Monica J. Benton in King County
Superior Court in Kent, Wash., for the purpose of determining (a)
whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate
and should be approved by the Court; (b) whether the Named
Plaintiffs will receive incentive awards in an amount not to
exceed $7,500 each; (c) whether Plaintiffs' counsel should
receive an award of attorneys' fees and costs, and the amount of
any such award, not to exceed $10 million; and (d) whether an
Order of Final Judgment and Dismissal should be entered.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W, Berman, Esq.
          Andrew Volk, Es.q
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: 206-623-7292
          Fax: 206-623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  andrew@hbsslaw.com

Expedia is represented by:

          James P. Karen, Esq.
          Jones Day
          2727 N. Harwood St.
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: 214-969-5027
          Fax: 214-969-5100
          E-mail: jkaren@jonesday.com


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Dec. Hearing Set for "Fischer" Certification   
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing on the motion for class certification in Fischer, et al.
v. IG Investment Management Ltd., et al., is scheduled to begin
in early December 2009, according to Franklin Resources, Inc.'
Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The company's subsidiary, Franklin Templeton Investments Corp.
("FTIC") ,is named along with several other non-Franklin
affiliated investment manager defendants in two market-timing
lawsuits in Canada that are styled as class actions.

FTIC is the investment manager of Franklin Templeton's Canadian
mutual funds.

The lawsuits contain allegations similar or identical to
allegations asserted by the Ontario Securities Commission in its
March 3, 2005 order concerning market-timing activities by three
institutional investors in certain Canadian mutual funds managed
by FTIC between February 1999 and February 2003, as previously
reported.

The lawsuits seek, among other relief, monetary damages,
punitive damages, an order barring any increase in management
fees for a period of two years following judgment, and/or
attorneys' fees and costs.

The lawsuits are:

   (i) Huneault v. AGF Funds, Inc., et al., Case No.
       500-06-000256-046, filed on Oct. 25, 2004,
       in the Superior Court for the Province of
       Quebec, District of Montreal; and

  (ii) Fischer, et al. v. IG Investment Management Ltd., et al.
       Case No. 06-CV-307599CP, filed on March 9, 2006, in the
       Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The plaintiffs in the Fischer lawsuit served defendants with a
motion for authorization to institute a class action in July
2007.  Defendants filed their evidence in opposition to that
motion on Sept. 29, 2008, according to the company's Feb. 9,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Since the filing of the original motion for authorization to
institute a class action in October 2004, petitioners in the
Huneault lawsuit have amended their motion several times, most
recently on April 17, 2009, to revise the proposed class
definition.

Petitioners and respondents in that lawsuit filed their plans of
argument on the motion in March 2009, and oral argument on the
motion concluded on May 5, 2009.  The matter is now under
submission with the court.

Plaintiffs in the Fischer lawsuit served defendants with a motion
for class certification in July 2007.  

Franklin Resources, Inc. -- http://www.franklintempleton.com/--
is an investment management company.  Through its wholly owned
direct and indirect subsidiaries, Franklin Resources provides
investment management and fund administration services to open-
end and closed-end investment companies, institutional accounts,
high-net-worth families, individuals and separate accounts in
the U.S. and internationally.


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Motion to Dismiss Market-Timing Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc. is awaiting a ruling on its motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended class-action complaint in In re
Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, Case No. 04-md-15862 (D. Md.)
(Davis, J.).

The company and certain of the Franklin Templeton mutual funds,
current and former officers, employees, and directors have been
named in multiple lawsuits in different federal courts in Nevada,
California, Illinois, New York, and Florida.  Generally, the
cases alleged violations of various federal securities and state
laws.

Specifically, the lawsuits claim breach of duty with respect to
alleged arrangements to permit market timing and late trading
activity, or breach of duty with respect to the valuation of the
portfolio securities of certain Templeton Funds managed by the
company's subsidiaries, allegedly resulting in market timing
activity.

The lawsuits are styled as class-action suits, or derivative
actions on behalf of either the named funds or the company.

The plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, monetary
damages, restitution, removal of fund trustees, directors,
advisers, administrators, and distributors, rescission of
management contracts and 12b-1 plans, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The majority of these lawsuits duplicate, in whole or in part,
the allegations asserted in an administrative complaint and in
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's findings regarding
market timing in the SEC Order.

To date, more than 400 similar lawsuits against at least 19
different mutual fund companies have been filed in federal
district courts throughout the country.

Because the cases involve common questions of fact, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the creation of a
multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland entitled "In re Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation."

The Judicial Panel then transferred similar cases from different
districts to the MDL for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

As of Dec. 20, 2006, these market timing lawsuits are pending
against the company and certain of its subsidiaries, and in some
instances, name certain officers, directors and Funds.

The suits transferred to the MDL Court include:

       * Kenerley v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No.
         03-770 GPM, filed on Nov. 19, 2003, in the U.S.
         District Court for the Southern District of Illinois;

       * Cullen v. Templeton Growth Fund, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 03-859 MJR, filed on Dec. 16, 2003, in the U.S.
         District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
         and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of Florida on March 29, 2004;

       * Jaffe v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case
         No. CV-S-04-0146-PMP-RJJ, filed on Feb. 6, 2004, in
         the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada;

       * Lum v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04
         0583 JSW, filed on Feb. 11, 2004, in the U.S. District
         Court for the Northern District of California;

       * Fischbein v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al.,
         Case No. C 04 0584 JSW, filed on Feb. 11, 2004, in
         the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

       * Beer v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case
         No. 8:04-CV-249-T-26 MAP, filed on Feb. 11, 2004, in
         the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
         Florida;

       * Bennett v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         CV-S-04-0154-HDM-RJJ, filed on Feb. 12, 2004, in the
         U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada;

       * Dukes v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case
         No. C 04 0598 MJJ, filed on Feb. 12, 2004, in the
         U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California;

       * McAlvey v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         C 04 0628 PJH, filed on Feb. 13, 2004, in the U.S.
         District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

       * Alexander v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al.,
         Case No. C 04 0639 SC, filed on Feb. 17, 2004, in the
         U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

       * Hugh Sharkey IRA/RO v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et
         al., Case No. 04 CV 1330, filed on Feb. 18, 2004, in
         the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York;

       * D'Alliessi, et al. v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund,
         et al., Case No. C 04 0865 SC, filed on March 3, 2004,
         in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

       * Marcus v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0901 JL, filed on March 5, 2004, in the U.S.
         District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

       * Banner v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0902 JL, filed on March 5, 2004 in the U.S.
         District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

       * Denenberg v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case
         No. C 04 0984 EMC, filed on March 10, 2004, in the
         U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California; and

       * Hertz v. Burns, et al., Case No. 04 CV 02489, filed
         on March 30, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs in the MDL proceeding filed consolidated amended
complaints on Sept. 29, 2004.  On Feb. 25, 2005, the defendants,
including the company, certain of its subsidiaries and the named
Funds and individual defendants, filed motions to dismiss those
amended complaints.

On June 26, 2008, the court issued its order granting in part
and denying in part the company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended class-action complaint.  In its order, the
court dismissed certain claims, while allowing others to remain,
and dismissed all class action claims against the named Funds.
Pursuant to stipulation, the court also dismissed all claims
against certain individual defendants, including the independent
directors to the named Funds, and a former company executive.

The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated fund derivative
action remains under submission with 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.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          H. Adam Prussin, Esq.
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman and Gross, LLP
          100 Park Ave., 26th Fl.
          New York, NY 10017-5516
          Phone: 1-212-661-1100
          Fax: 1-212-661-8665
          E-mail: haprussin@pomlaw.com

Representing the company is:

          Meredith Nelson Landy, Esq.
          O'Melveny and Myers, LLP
          2765 Sand Hill Rd.
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: 1-650-473-2671
          Fax: 1-650-473-2601
          E-mail: mlandy@omm.com


HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: FCA Bid to Reverse Certification Order Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc.'s motion to reverse the order
denying class certification in its lawsuit against Hill-Rom
Holdings, Inc., and its former Batesville Casket Company, Inc.,
subsidiary, was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit in July 2009.

On May 2, 2005, a non-profit entity called FCA and several
individual consumers filed a purported antitrust class-action
lawsuit against three national funeral home businesses, Service
Corporation International, Alderwoods Group, Inc., and Stewart
Enterprises, Inc. together with the Company, and Batesville,
which is now wholly-owned by Hillenbrand, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

This lawsuit alleged a conspiracy to suppress competition in an
alleged market for the sale of caskets through a group boycott
of so-called "independent casket discounters," that is, third-
party casket sellers unaffiliated with licensed funeral homes; a
campaign of disparagement against these independent casket
discounters; and concerted efforts to restrict casket price
competition and to coordinate and fix casket pricing, all in
violation of federal antitrust law and California's Unfair
Competition Law.

The lawsuit claimed, among other things, that Batesville's
maintenance and enforcement of, and alleged modifications to,
its long-standing policy of selling caskets only to licensed
funeral homes were the product of a conspiracy among Batesville,
the other defendants and others to exclude "independent casket
discounters" and that this alleged conspiracy, combined with
other alleged matters, suppressed competition in the alleged
market for caskets and led consumers to pay higher than
competitive prices for caskets.

The FCA Action alleged that two of Batesville's competitors,
York Group, Inc. and Aurora Casket Company, are co-conspirators
but did not name them as defendants.  The FCA Action also
alleged that SCI, Alderwoods, Stewart and other unnamed co-
conspirators conspired to monopolize the alleged market for the
sale of caskets in the United States.

After the FCA Action was filed, several more purported class
action lawsuits on behalf of consumers were filed based on
essentially the same factual allegations and alleging violations
of federal antitrust law and related state law claims.

Batesville, the Company and the other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the FCA Action and a motion to transfer to a more
convenient forum.  In response, the court in California
permitted the plaintiffs to replead the complaint and later
granted defendants' motion to transfer the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston,
Texas).

On Oct. 12, 2005, the FCA plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
consolidating all but one of the other purported consumer class
actions.  The amended FCA complaint contains substantially the
same basic allegations as the original FCA complaint.  The only
other then remaining purported consumer class action, "Fancher
v. SCI et al.," was subsequently dismissed voluntarily by the
plaintiff after the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

On Oct. 26, 2006, however, a new purported class-action suit was
filed by the estates of Dale Van Coley and Joye Katherine Coley,
Candace D. Robinson, Personal Representative, consumer
plaintiffs, against Batesville and the Company in the Western
District of Oklahoma alleging violation of the antitrust laws in
fourteen states based on allegations that Batesville engaged in
conduct designed to foreclose competition and gain a monopoly
position in the market.  This lawsuit was largely based on
similar factual allegations to the FCA Action.  Batesville and
the Company had this case transferred to the Southern District
of Texas in order to coordinate this action with the FCA Action
and filed a motion to dismiss this action.  On Sept. 17, 2007,
the Court granted Batesville's and the Company's motion to
dismiss and ordered the action dismissed with prejudice.

The FCA plaintiffs are seeking certification of a class that
includes all United States consumers who purchased Batesville
caskets from any of the funeral home co-defendants at any time
during the fullest period permitted by the applicable statute of
limitations. On Oct. 18, 2006, the Court denied the defendants'
November 2005 motions to dismiss the amended FCA complaint.

Class certification hearing was held in early December 2006.
Post-hearing briefing on the plaintiffs' class certification
motion was completed in March 2007, though briefing on certain
supplemental evidence related to class certification also
occurred in September 2007 and October 2007.

On Nov. 24, 2008, a Magistrate Judge in the Court recommended
that the motion for class certification be denied.  

On Aug. 27, 2007, the Court suspended all pending deadlines in
the case, including the previously set February 2008 trial date.
On Aug. 25, 2008, the court canceled a previously scheduled
Sept. 8, 2008 docket call and stayed the case pending resolution
of class certification.

The plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, trebling of any
such damages that may be awarded, recovery of attorneys' fees
and costs, and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs filed a report
indicating that they are seeking damages ranging from
approximately $947.0 million to approximately $1.46 billion
before trebling.

On March 26, 2009, the District Court Judge adopted the memoranda
and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and denied class
certification in both cases.

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 FCA plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for permission to file an appeal of
the Court's order denying class certification.  On June 19, 2009,
a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit denied that petition.  
Then, on July 9, 2009, the FCA plaintiffs filed alternative
requests with the Fifth Circuit for reconsideration of the denial
of their petition or for permission to file a petition for
rehearing by all of the judges sitting on the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals.  On July 29, 2009, a three-judge panel of the Fifth
Circuit denied both requests.

Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.hill-rom.com/-- formerly
Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., is the manufacturer and provider
of medical technologies and related services for the health care
industry, including patient support systems, non-invasive
therapeutic products for a variety of acute and chronic medical
conditions, medical equipment rentals and health information
technology solutions.  Hill-Rom's product and service offerings
are used by healthcare providers across the healthcare continuum
in hospitals, extended care facilities and home care settings.
On March 31, 2008, Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. completed the spin-
off of its funeral services business operating under the
Batesville Casket name.


HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Pioneer Valley's Suit Dismissed in April 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Valley Casket Co.'s lawsuit against Hill-Rom Holdings,
Inc., and its former Batesville Casket Company, Inc., subsidiary,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
was dismissed in April 2009.

On July 8, 2005, Pioneer Valley Casket Co., an alleged casket
store and Internet retailer, also filed a purported class action
lawsuit against Batesville, the Company, Service Corporation
International, Alderwoods Group, Inc. and Stewart Enterprises,
Inc. in California District Court on behalf of the class of
"independent casket distributors," alleging violations of state
and federal antitrust law and state unfair and deceptive
practices laws based on essentially the same factual allegations
as in the consumer cases.

Pioneer Valley claimed that it and other independent casket
distributors were injured by the defendants' alleged conspiracy
to boycott and suppress competition in the alleged market for
caskets, and by an alleged conspiracy among SCI, Alderwoods,
Stewart and other unnamed co-conspirators to monopolize the
alleged market for caskets.

The Pioneer Valley complaint was also transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston,
Texas), but was not consolidated with the action filed by
Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc., although the scheduling orders
for both cases are identical.

On Oct. 21, 2005, Pioneer Valley filed an amended complaint
adding three new plaintiffs, each of whom purports to be a
current or former "independent casket distributor."

Like Pioneer Valley's original complaint, the amended complaint
alleges violations of federal antitrust laws, but it has dropped
the causes of actions for alleged price fixing, conspiracy to
monopolize, and violations of state antitrust law and state
unfair and deceptive practices laws.

On Oct. 25, 2006, the district court denied the December 2005
motions to dismiss the amended Pioneer Valley complaint.

The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all independent
casket distributors in the United States who are presently in
business or were in business any time from July 8, 2001, to the
present, including the following subclasses of independent
casket distributors who:

      -- paid a surcharge in order to obtain a Batesville casket
         from an entity other than Batesville; and

      -- were engaged in business as of Dec. 4, 2006.

Excluded from the class are independent casket distributors
that:

      -- are affiliated in any way with any funeral home;

      -- manufacture caskets;

      -- are Defendants, including all directors, officers,
         agents, and employees of such; or

      -- are parents, subsidiaries and/or affiliates of
         Defendants.

Class certification hearing was held in early December 2006.
Post-hearing briefing on the plaintiffs' class certification
motion was completed in March 2007.

On Nov. 24, 2008, a Magistrate Judge in the Court recommended
that the motion for class certification be denied.

On Aug. 27, 2007, the Court suspended all pending deadlines in
the case, including the previously set February 2008 trial date.
On Aug. 25, 2008, the court canceled a previously scheduled
Sept. 8, 2008 docket call and stayed the case pending resolution
of class certification.

The plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, trebling of any
such damages that may be awarded, recovery of attorneys' fees
and costs, and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs filed a report
indicating that they are seeking damages of approximately $99.2
million before trebling.

The plaintiffs in each case have filed objections to the
Magistrate Judge's recommendations with the U.S. District Judge.
If the District Judge accepts the Magistrate Judge's
recommendations and denies class certification, plaintiffs may
petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for
leave to appeal.  It is anticipated that new deadlines,
including a possible trial date, will not be set until sometime
after the District Court has ruled on the motions for class
certification.

On March 26, 2009, the District Court Judge adopted the memoranda
and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and denied class
certification.

The Pioneer Valley plaintiffs did not appeal the District Court's
order denying class certification, and on April 29, 2009,
pursuant to a stipulation among the parties, the District Court
dismissed the Pioneer Valley Action with prejudice, which means
that these plaintiffs cannot refile these claims again.  Neither
the company nor Batesville provided any payment or consideration
for the plaintiffs to dismiss this case, other than agreeing to
bear their own costs, rather than pursuing plaintiffs for costs,
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.

Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.hill-rom.com/-- formerly
Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., is the manufacturer and provider
of medical technologies and related services for the health care
industry, including patient support systems, non-invasive
therapeutic products for a variety of acute and chronic medical
conditions, medical equipment rentals and health information
technology solutions.  Hill-Rom's product and service offerings
are used by healthcare providers across the healthcare continuum
in hospitals, extended care facilities and home care settings.
On March 31, 2008, Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. completed the spin-
off of its funeral services business operating under the
Batesville Casket name.


IMMUCOR INC: Lead Plaintiff Request Deadline is Oct. 26
-------------------------------------------------------
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class action lawsuit on behalf
of an institutional investor in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of
Immucor, Inc., 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 Oct. 26, 2009.  

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.


INTEL CORP: Faces 2nd Calif. Lawsuit Over Notebook Battery Life
---------------------------------------------------------------
C. Shanti at TG Daily reports that another lawsuit, Glassman v.
Intel Corp., Case No. 09-cv-03926 (N.D. Calif.), has been filed
against Intel Corp. and, this time, names benchmarking firm
Business Applications Performance Corporation as a co-defendant.  
The lawsuit alleges Intel's use of Bapco's MobileMark 2007
benchmark software misleads people about the battery life of a
notebook computer.  This new lawsuit claims "Intel knows or
should have known that its battery life claims did not provide an
accurate indication as to the battery life a consumer could
expect.  Intel failed to inform customers that the testing was
conducted under conditions which were far from how an actual user
would actually use the computer."  

"In addition," the complaint says, "Intel failed to inform
consumers that the basis for their battery life claims was
created by defendant Bapco, a consortium whose members are
computer makers and other technology companies."

On June 26, 2009, a purported class-action lawsuit, Mendez v.
Intel Corporation, Case No. 09-cv-02889 (N.D. Calif.) (Ware, J.),
claiming that Intel Corp. is improperly capitalizing on
customers' willingness to pay for extra laptop battery life by
"designing a program to inflate battery life measurements for
laptops with Intel processors was filed against the chipmaker
(but not Bapco).

Aaron Glassman, Desseret Funderburk, and Valentine Anderson, the
plaintiffs in the latest lawsuit, are represented by:

          Mario Man-Lung Choi, Esq.
          Linda M. Fong, Esq.
          Laurence D King, Esq.
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-772-4700
          Fax: 415-772-4707
          E-mail: mchoi@kaplanfox.com
                  lfong@kaplanfox.com
                  lking@kaplanfox.com

Esmeralda Mendez, the plaintiff in the first lawsuit, is
represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-981-4800
          Fax: 415-981-4846
          E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Austin P. Tighe, Jr., Esq.
          Feazell & Tighe LLP
          Bridgepoint 2, Suite 220
          6300 Brigepoint Parkway
          Austin, TX 78730
          Phone: 512-372-8100
          Fax: 512-372-8140
          E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com

Intel Corp. is represented by:

          Richard John Zuromski, Jr., Esq.
          Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center, Ste. 3800
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5974
          Telephone: 415-984-6463
          Fax: 415-984-2698
          E-mail: richard.Zuromski@skadden.com


MILWAUKEE PUBLIC: 7th Cir. Puts Special Education Suit on Hold
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Richards at the Journal Sentinel reports that Milwaukee
Public Schools finally scored a victory in its ongoing special
education class action lawsuit this week over how it should find
and compensate students who failed to receive special education
services.

In June, Ms. Richards relates, U.S. District Court Magistrate
Judge Aaron Goodstein issued orders for MPS to seek out hundreds,
if not thousands, of students -- including regular education
students -- who might have missed being identified as eligible
for special education services between September 2000 and June
2005.

Now, the newspaper report says, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit in Chicago has granted MPS its motion to stay
those orders, "essentially hitting the pause button on the case."

Jeffrey Spitzer-Resnick, Esq., managing attorney for Disability
Rights Wisconsin, told Ms. Richards he was dismayed about the
motion to stay.  

Milwaukee Public Schools is represented by Quarles & Brady.


NATHAN'S FAMOUS: Mulls Response to Consumer Fraud Suit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan's Famous, Inc., is evaluating its response to a class
action complaint alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter period ended June 30, 2009.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


OLD MOTHER: Suit Says Pet Food Falsely Labeled "Human Grade"
------------------------------------------------------------
Karina Brown at Courthouse News Service reports that PetCo Animal
Supplies, Inc., and Old Mother Hubbard, Inc., sell pet food under
the false claim that it contains only "human grade" meat, though
it actually contains feathers, viscera, skin and bones, a class
action lawsuit claims.   The class challenges the claim that the
ingredients of "Wellness" brand dry pet food are of "the same
quality you would feed to your own family."

Lead plaintiffs Julie Barney and Candice Winzen say the
defendants made millions from pet owners who are willing to pay
extra for Wellness pet food, based on the false claims about its
ingredients.

Wellness dog food contains chicken meal and other animal meal,
which the class claims "consists of low quality poultry meat,
poultry skin, bones, and may include feathers, internal organ and
other viscera. Chicken meal is never suitable for human
consumption."

The class seeks punitive damages and an injunction stopping the
allegedly misleading ads.  

The proceeding is Barney, et al. v. Old Mother Hubbard, Inc., and
Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-06195 (C.D.
Calif.).

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roger E. Borg, Esq.
          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Matthew R. Orr, Esq.  
          CALL JENSEN AND FERRELL, P.C.
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: 949-717-3000
          Fax: 949-717-3100
          E-mail: borglaw@roadrunner.com
                  sferrell@calljensen.com
                  morr@calljensen.com


PETCO ANIMAL: Suit Says Pet Food Falsely Labeled "Human Grade"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karina Brown at Courthouse News Service reports that PetCo Animal
Supplies, Inc., and Old Mother Hubbard, Inc., sell pet food under
the false claim that it contains only "human grade" meat, though
it actually contains feathers, viscera, skin and bones, a class
action lawsuit claims.   The class challenges the claim that the
ingredients of "Wellness" brand dry pet food are of "the same
quality you would feed to your own family."

Lead plaintiffs Julie Barney and Candice Winzen say the
defendants made millions from pet owners who are willing to pay
extra for Wellness pet food, based on the false claims about its
ingredients.

Wellness dog food contains chicken meal and other animal meal,
which the class claims "consists of low quality poultry meat,
poultry skin, bones, and may include feathers, internal organ and
other viscera. Chicken meal is never suitable for human
consumption."

The class seeks punitive damages and an injunction stopping the
allegedly misleading ads.  

The proceeding is Barney, et al. v. Old Mother Hubbard, Inc., and
Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-06195 (C.D.
Calif.).

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roger E. Borg, Esq.
          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Matthew R. Orr, Esq.  
          CALL JENSEN AND FERRELL, P.C.
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: 949-717-3000
          Fax: 949-717-3100
          E-mail: borglaw@roadrunner.com
                  sferrell@calljensen.com
                  morr@calljensen.com


PPL MONTANA: Mont. Sup. Ct. Remands Landowner Suit to Trial Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Montana Supreme Court has
ordered new hearings on several aspects of a lawsuit filed by a
group of Flathead Lake landowners against PPL Montana over its
management of Kerr Dam.  A group of landowners was granted class
action status for the lawsuit, filed in 1999, that argues Montana
Power Co. and its successor PPL Montana caused unreasonable
damage to their property by keeping Flathead Lake full into early
October, when storms kick up waves that cause erosion on the
shoreline.  A District Court granted a summary judgment in favor
of PPL Montana, saying its easements allowed for such erosion,
but the Supreme Court ruled a hearing needs to be held on whether
the water caused "unreasonable damage."  The Supreme Court, in a
decision issued last week, sent the case back to the District
Court.

Chris Rizo at Legal News Line explains that, tt trial, the
District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District ruled in favor
of PPL Montana, finding that the lands are subject to easements.
Now, the state high court says hearings are in order to determine
if released lake water caused unreasonable damage.

"Nothing in the easement language establishes a limiting contour
line or ceiling at 2,893 feet above mean sea level on each
Landowner's parcel such that all 'flooding, subirrigating,
draining, or otherwise affecting' must occur below this
elevation," the court said.

As for the lawsuit's class action status, the state Supreme Court
last week vacated the district court's order certifying the case,
and has asked the trial court to reconsider whether class action
status should be granted.  PPL Montana has argued that the class
action status should not remain since PPL Montana took over
management of Kerr Dam from Montana Power Co., the original
defendant in the case.


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Lead Plaintiff Deadline is Sept. 22
-------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., reminds investors of the important
September 22, 2009, Lead Plaintiff deadline in the class action
lawsuit -- Shepardson v. Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., Case No.
09-cv-05416 (C.D. Calif.) -- the Firm filed on behalf of all
purchasers of Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. (NYSE:SKH) common
stock during the period from May 14, 2007, through June 9, 2009,
inclusive.  The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal
securities laws and seeks to recover losses for Skilled
Healthcare shareholders.

To join the Skilled Healthcare class action, go to the Web site
at http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Laurence Rosen Esq., or  
Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free at 866-767-3653 or e-mail
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.  Numerous other law firms have issued notices
"announcing" a class action lawsuit against Skilled Healthcare,
however many of these firms have not actually filed a class
action lawsuit.  The Rosen Law Firm researched, drafted and filed
the first class action complaint against Skilled Healthcare that
many of these announcements appear to refer to.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER. YOU MAY
RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

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

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Skilled Healthcare common stock during the Class Period,
including purchasers of Skilled Healthcare's common stock in the
IPO on or about May 14, 2007.

Tom Shepardson, the named plaintiff, is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.  
          The Rosen Law Firm PA
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: 212-686-1060
          Fax: 212-202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Kenneth J Catanzarite, Esq.
          Catanzarite Law Offices
          2331 West Lincoln Avenue
          Anaheim, CA 92801
          Telephone: 714-520-5544
          Fax: 714-529-0680
          E-mail: kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com

The Defendants -- Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., Boyd
Hendrickson, Devasis Ghose and John E. King -- are represented
by:

          Michele D. Johnson, Esq.
          Latham & Watkins LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, Suite 2000
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: 714-540-1235
          E-mail: michele.johnson@lw.com


SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICAL: Sued in Minn. for Menopause Drug Deception
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims that Solvay Pharmaceutical deceived doctors
and patients for 45 years by selling a menopause drug that the
FDA had not approved.  Doctors have written 35 million
prescriptions for Estratest since 1997, and Solvay made $178
million a year from it, according to the complaint.

A copy of the complaint in Yarrington, et al. v. Solvay
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-02261 (D. Minn.), is
available at no charge at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/08/31/Estratest.pdf

Ms. Leonard relates that the four named plaintiffs say they took
Estratest for periods ranging from a couple of months to more
than a dozen years. They say that until early this year, Solvay
illegally pushed the estrogen-androgen drug as a safe way to
treat moderate-to-severe menopause symptoms in cases where
estrogen therapy alone was unsuccessful.

The class claims: "Since 1964, the defendant promoted the
misperception that Estratest is FDA-approved when in fact it is
not."

In 2003 the FDA found that estrogen-androgen drug combinations
were no more effective than estrogen alone in reducing hot
flashes, but Solvay continued push Estratest and Estratest Half
Strength for the complaint, the class claims. They say the U.S.
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act demands that drug manufacturers
receive FDA approval that their drug is safe and effective before
they push the product for "indicated" uses.

Solvay not only deceived "thousands" of unwitting patients, the
class claims, it deceived leading researchers of estrogen-
androgen therapies through the Physicians' Desk Reference, a
standard medical guide.

The PDR, which is meant to direct doctors to FDA-approved drugs,
includes Estratest because Solvay sent the publishers the same
misinformation that appears on Solvay's Web site, the class
claims.

Solvay also claimed to have FDA approval in a form it filled out
to sell Estratest to the Defense Department, the class claims,
citing a March 20, 2003, Wall Street Journal article.

The class seeks punitive damages, disgorgement and an injunction.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Alexander, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          One Nashville Place
          150 Fourth Avenue, N., Suite 1650
          Nashville, TN 55402
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000
          Fax: (615) 313-9965

             - and -

          Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
          Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          Embarcadero Center West
          275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Fax: (415) 956-1008

             - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
          Brian L. Williams, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          650 Northstar East
          608 Second Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Fax: (612) 339-6622


TIMBERCORP: 1,600 Investors Sue Three Directors in Australia
------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Battersby, writing for The Age, reports that Timbercorp
directors Gary Lidell, Robert Hance and Sol Rabinowicz will be
named as defendants in a class action by lawyers acting for 1,600
out-of-pocket Timbercorp investors who claim the true state of
the company's finances was not fully disclosed, and if it had
been, they would not have invested money in Timbercorp that they
borrowed from a Timbercorp subsidiary.  

The law firm of Macpherson Kelley in Dandenong, Victoria,
Australia, represents several big Timbercorp investors who are
being pursued by the company's liquidator, KordaMentha, for
failing to repay debts to a Timbercorp subsidiary.  Timbercorp
went into voluntary administration on April 23 this year with
debts of $903 million.

Many investors were given loans by the company to invest in their
almond, avocado, olive or mango plantations, Ms. Battersby
explains.  They were allegedly told by their financial planners
that the harvest and sale of these fruits would cover the cost of
the loan and provide a profit, according to documents lodged with
the court.  However, the company collapsed before it was able to
harvest the fruit, and the liquidators are trying to sell the
olive and almond trees and fruit.

Ms. Battersby's complete story is available at http://is.gd/2IcYw


UNITED PARCEL: EEOC Files Disability Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In what the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is
calling a major class lawsuit, the Commission filed a lawsuit in
federal court in Chicago last week charging that Atlanta-based
United Parcel Service, Inc., the world's largest package delivery
company, violated federal law by rejecting an extension of
medical leave as a reasonable accommodation for its employees
with disabilities.

The EEOC's administrative investigation, conducted prior to
filing the lawsuit and supervised by Chicago District Director
John Rowe, found that UPS violated the Americans With
Disabilities Act.  According to Mr. Rowe, Trudi Momsen, an
administrative assistant at UPS, took a 12-month leave of absence
from work when she began experiencing symptoms of what was later
diagnosed as multiple sclerosis. She returned to work for a few
weeks, but soon thereafter needed additional time off after
experiencing what she believed to be negative side effects of her
medication.  Although Ms. Momsen could have returned to work
after an additional two-week leave of absence, UPS fired her for
exceeding its 12-month leave policy.  Following its
investigation, the EEOC reached an administrative determination
that UPS failed to accommodate Ms. Momsen's disability, in
violation of the ADA.

"This case should send a wake up call to Corporate America that
violating the Americans With Disabilities Act will result in
vigorous enforcement by the EEOC," said Commission Acting
Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru.  "The ADA has been the law of the
land for nearly two decades now, and employers simply have no
excuse for failing to abide by its provisions."

The EEOC said it filed the suit after first attempting to reach a
voluntary settlement with UPS.  The litigation, captioned EEOC v.
United Parcel Service, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-C-5291 (N.D.
Ill.) (Dow, J.), seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive
damages for Ms. Momsen and a class of disabled employees whom UPS
similarly refused to accommodate, as well as an order barring
future discrimination and other relief.

EEOC Chicago Regional Attorney John Hendrickson said, "One of the
main goals of the ADA is to provide gainful employment to
qualified individuals with disabilities.  However, policies like
this one at UPS, which set arbitrary deadlines for returning to
work after medical treatment, unfairly keep disabled employees
from working.  Sometimes a simple conversation with the employee
about what might be needed to return to work is all that is
necessary to keep valued employees in their jobs."

According to company information, Atlanta-based UPS, which
describes itself at the world's largest package delivery company,
is a $49.7 billion global corporation operating in more than 200
countries and territories worldwide.  

Tresa Baldas at The National Law Journal sought comment from UPS,
and UPS denies any wrongdoing.  Ms. Baldas' coverage of the suit
is at http://editorial.incisivemedia.com/c/12e0EGUjkgPSmYqJ9M

"We expect a large number of employees are affected, given that
UPS is a big employer, and has had this nationwide policy in
place for a long time," Diane Smason, Esq., an EEOC lawyer
handling the case, told a Reuters reporter in an interview.  "It
is a blanket rule with no flexibility, and the law requires
individual assessments."  UPS employed about 426,000 people at
the end of 2008, and Ms. Smason estimated that hundreds of
workers could be affected by the company's medical leave
policies.

                            *********

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  * * *