CAR_Public/090921.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, September 21, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 186
  
                            Headlines

AFEXA LIFE: Preliminary $7.1 Mil. Settlement in Cold FX Case
AMERICAN HONDA: Accord Owners Claim Accord Brakes Wear Too Fast
AOL INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated FLSA Suit in New York
AOL INC: Defending Second Amended Complaint in ERISA Lawsuit
AOL INC: Awaits Ruling on Claims Over Communications Privacy

BIG LOTS INC: Continues to Defend Calif. Workers' Wage Lawsuits
BIG LOTS: Defending Civil Complaint Over FLSA Violations in N.Y.
BIG LOTS: Oct. 29 Hearing Set for Certification of Workers' Suit
BIG LOTS: Awaits Louisiana Rulings on Suits Over FLSA Violations
CAPITAL ONE: Sued for Doubling Credit Card Interest Rates

CHURCH & DWIGHT: Accused of Deceptive Advertising for Free Item
MDL NO. 1840: Costco Settles; Fuel Claims Due by March 2, 2010
MEDTRONIC INC: Suits Over Sprint Fidelis Products Pending
MEDTRONIC INC: Motion to Dismiss Kinetic Knife's Suit Pending
MEDTRONIC INC: Merged Product Liability Suit Pending in Canada

MEDTRONIC INC: Appeal of Junked Securities Fraud Suit Pending
MEDTRONIC INC: Appeal of Dismissal of "Brown" ERISA Suit Pending
MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Minnesota
MEDTRONIC INC: Bid to Nix "Wright" Suit Set for Oct. 19 Hearing
MICHAEL BAKER: Securities Fraud Settlement Gets Final Approval

PARIS HILTON: May Face $34 Mil. Suit for European "No-Show"
PROGRESSIVE CORP: Class Challenges Uninsured Motorist Policy
QUEENSLAND GOV'T: 23 Ipswich Residents Lodge Mining Complaint
SIEMENS USA: Charged with Improperly Denying Jobs to Reservists
STERLING JEWELERS: Female Employees Can Proceed as a Class

TRUDEAU CORP: Recalls 22,000 Garlic Slicers
VERMILLION PARISH: La. School Board Charged with Sex Segregation
WACHOVIA SECURITIES: Female Workers Allege Gender Bias in Lawsuit

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

VIVENDI SA: Entwistle Files Shareholder Fraud Suit in S.D.N.Y
WACHOVIA CORP: Grant & Eisenhofer Files Complaint in S.D.N.Y.

                            *********

AFEXA LIFE: Preliminary $7.1 Mil. Settlement in Cold FX Case
------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersAndSettlements.com reports that Afexa Life Sciences Inc.,
fka CV Technologies, the manufacturer of Cold FX, has reached a
preliminary agreement in the class action securities lawsuit it
currently faces, citing The Globe and Mail as its source.  

If approved, the $7.1 million settlement -- about half of
investors' alleged losses -- would end the lawsuit filed in 2007.

"We decided to settle the action rather than fight it because the
legal costs would have been in the millions, regardless of what
the outcome in the court would have been," Cold-FX spokesman
Warren Michaels told Brenda Bouow at The Canadian Press.

The Class consists of all persons who acquired CV securities
between December 11, 2006, and March 23, 2007, and who held some
or all of those securities on March 26, 2007.  As previously
reported in the Class Action Reporter, the plaintiffs alleged,
among other things, that CV Technologies, its CEO, two members of
its Board of Directors, and its auditors, Grant Thornton LLP,
negligently or recklessly overstated CV's revenues for fiscal
2006 and the first quarter of 2007 and thereby artificially
inflated the trading price of CV securities.

Afexa, based in Edmonton, Canada, was ranked as one of the
fastest growing small companies registered on the Toronto Stock
Exchange in the mid-2000s.

The Plaintiff class is represented by:

          Jay Strosberg, Esq.
          Sutts, Strosberg LLP
          600 Westcourt Place
          251 Goyeau Street
          Windsor ON N9A 6V4 CANADA
          Tel: 519.561.6285
          Fax: 519.561.6203


AMERICAN HONDA: Accord Owners Claim Accord Brakes Wear Too Fast
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Honda 2008 and 2009 Accords'
defective rear brakes apply excessive force, causing the pads to
wear out every 15,000 to 20,000 miles, a class action claims in
Los Angeles Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Browne, et al. v. American Honda Motor
Co., Inc., Case No. 09-cv-06750 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/17/Cars.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Dylan Hughes, Esq.
          Geoffrey A. Munroe, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800

               - and -

          Steve Berk, Esq.
          Michael Lewis, Esq.
          BERK LAW PLLC
          1225 Fifteenth St. NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 232-7550


AOL INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated FLSA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
AOL Inc. continues to defend a consolidated class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to the company's Amendment No. 1 to Form 10 filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Sept. 16, 2009.

On May 24, 1999, two former AOL Community Leader volunteers
brought a putative class action, Hallissey et al. v. America
Online, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York State law.  

The plaintiffs allege that, in serving as AOL Community Leader
volunteers, they were acting as employees rather than volunteers
for purposes of the FLSA and New York State law and are entitled
to minimum wages.  

The court denied the company's motion to dismiss in 2006 and
ordered the issuance of notice to the putative class in 2008.  

In February 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion to file an amended
complaint, the briefing for which was completed in May 2009, and
which the court denied on July 17, 2009.  

In 2001, four of the named plaintiffs in the Hallissey case filed
a related lawsuit alleging retaliation as a result of filing the
FLSA suit in Williams, et al. v. America Online, Inc., et al.  

A related case was filed by several of the Hallissey plaintiffs
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging violations of the retaliation provisions of the FLSA.  
This case was stayed pending the outcome of the company's motion
to dismiss in the Hallissey matter discussed above, but has not
yet been activated.  

Also in 2001, two related class actions were filed in state
courts in New Jersey (Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County
Law Division) and Ohio (Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County,
Ohio), alleging violations of the FLSA and/or the respective
state laws.  

These cases were removed to federal court and subsequently
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York for consolidated pretrial proceedings with Hallissey.

AOL Inc. is a global web services company with an extensive suite
of brands and offerings and a substantial worldwide audience.  
The company's business spans online content, products and
services that we offer to consumers, publishers and advertisers.  


AOL INC: Defending Second Amended Complaint in ERISA Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
AOL Inc. is defending the second amended complaint in a class
action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.  

On Jan. 17, 2002, AOL Community Leader volunteers filed a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Hallissey et al. v. AOL Time Warner, Inc.,
et al., against AOL LLC alleging ERISA violations.  

Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to pension and/or
welfare benefits and/or other employee benefits subject to ERISA.  

In March 2003, plaintiffs filed and served a second amended
complaint, adding as defendants the AOL Time Warner
Administrative Committee and the AOL Administrative Committee.  

On May 19, 2003, AOL filed a motion to dismiss and the
Administrative Committees filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings.  Both of these motions are pending, according to its
Amendment No. 1 to Form 10 filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission dated Sept. 16, 2009.

AOL Inc. is a global web services company with an extensive suite
of brands and offerings and a substantial worldwide audience.  
The company's business spans online content, products and
services that we offer to consumers, publishers and advertisers.  


AOL INC: Awaits Ruling on Claims Over Communications Privacy
------------------------------------------------------------
AOL Inc. awaits a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on whether it may compel
plaintiffs to litigate their claims for alleged violations of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act in a state court.  

On Sept. 22, 2006, Salvadore Ramkissoon and two unnamed
plaintiffs filed a putative class action against AOL LLC in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California based
on AOL LLC's public posting of AOL LLC member search queries in
late July 2006.  

Among other things, the complaint alleges violations of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act and California statutes
relating to privacy, data protection and false advertising.  The
complaint seeks class certification and damages, as well as
injunctive relief that would oblige AOL LLC to alter its search
query retention practices.  

In February 2007, the District Court dismissed the action without
prejudice.  The plaintiffs then appealed this decision to the
Ninth Circuit.  

On Jan. 16, 2009, the Ninth Circuit held that AOL LLC's Terms of
Service violated California public policy as to any California
plaintiffs in the putative class, as it did not allow for them to
fully exercise their rights.  The Ninth Circuit reversed and
remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.  

On April 24, 2009, AOL LLC filed a motion to stay discovery as
well as a motion to implement the Ninth Circuit's mandate; the
former motion was denied on June 22, 2009.  AOL LLC filed its
answer on June 29, 2009.  

On July 6, 2009, the District Court found that the plaintiffs'
claims for unjust enrichment and public disclosure of private
facts were subject to the forum selection clause in the Terms of
Service and thus could not be pursued in that court.  Further,
the District Court ordered additional briefing on whether the
District Court may compel plaintiffs to litigate their claims for
alleged violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
in a state court.  

The briefing has been filed by both sides, according to the
company's Amendment No. 1 to Form 10 filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated Sept. 16, 2009.

AOL Inc. is a global web services company with an extensive suite
of brands and offerings and a substantial worldwide audience.  
The company's business spans online content, products and
services that we offer to consumers, publishers and advertisers.  


BIG LOTS INC: Continues to Defend Calif. Workers' Wage Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., continues to defend several purported class-
action lawsuits filed against the company in California,
asserting various wage and hour claims.

In February 2008, three alleged class-action complaints were
filed against the company by a California resident.

The first was filed before the Superior Court of California,
Orange County, alleging that the company violated certain
California wage and hour laws by misclassifying California store
managers as exempt employees.

The second and third matters, filed before the U.S. District
Court, Central District of California, and the Superior Court of
California, Riverside County, respectively, allege that the
company violated certain California wage and hour laws for
missed meal and rest periods and other wage and hour claims.

The plaintiff seeks to recover, on her own behalf and on behalf
of a California statewide class of all other individuals who are
similarly situated, damages resulting from improper wage
statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods, non-payment
of wages at termination, reimbursement of expenses, loss of
unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company believes that these matters overlap and it intends
to transfer venue and to consolidate them before one court.  The
remaining allegations also overlap some portion of the claims
released through the class action settlement in the Espinosa
matter, according to the company's Sept. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Aug. 1, 2009.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company
operated a total of 1,375 stores in 47 states.  Big Lots, Inc.'s
merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and
Toys, and Other.


BIG LOTS: Defending Civil Complaint Over FLSA Violations in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. defends a civil collective action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York,
according to the company's Sept. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 1, 2009.

In April 2009, the complaint was filed against the company in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York,
alleging that it violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by
misclassifying assistant store managers as exempt employees.

In addition, the plaintiff also seeks class action treatment
under New York law relating to those assistant store managers
working in the State of New York.

The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of himself and all
other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid
overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company
operated a total of 1,375 stores in 47 states.  Big Lots, Inc.'s
merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and
Toys, and Other.


BIG LOTS: Oct. 29 Hearing Set for Certification of Workers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, has set an Oct. 29, 2009 oral arguments hearing on the
issue of class certification in a lawsuit against Big Lots Inc.,
alleging violations of certain California wage and hour laws by
misclassifying California store managers as exempt employees.

The purported class-action complaint was filed in September
2006.  In it, the plaintiff seeks to recover, on his own behalf
and on behalf of all other individuals who are similarly
situated, damages for alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum
wages, wages not paid upon termination, improper wage
statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods,
reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The court has not determined whether the case may proceed as a
class action, according to the company's Sept. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Aug. 1, 2009.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company
operated a total of 1,375 stores in 47 states.  Big Lots, Inc.'s
merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and
Toys, and Other.


BIG LOTS: Awaits Louisiana Rulings on Suits Over FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. awaits multiple decisions by the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in lawsuits over
alleged Fair Labor Standards Act violations, according to the
company's Sept. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1,
2009.

In November 2004, a civil collective action complaint was filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, alleging that it violated the FLSA by
misclassifying assistant store managers as exempt employees.  

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and all
other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid
overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.  

On July 5, 2005, the court issued an order conditionally
certifying a class of all then current and former assistant store
managers who have worked for the company since Nov. 23, 2001.  

As a result of that order, notice of the lawsuit was sent to
approximately 5,500 individuals who had the right to opt-in to
the Louisiana matter.  Approximately 1,100 individuals opted to
join the Louisiana matter.  

The company filed a motion to decertify the class and the motion
was denied on Aug. 24, 2007.  

The trial began on May 7, 2008, and concluded on May 15, 2008.  

On June 20, 2008, the court issued an order decertifying the
action and dismissed, without prejudice, the claims of the opt-in
plaintiffs.  After this ruling, four plaintiffs remained before
the court.  

On Jan. 26, 2009, three of the plaintiffs presented their
respective cases before the court.  Since then, the claims of one
of the plaintiffs in the January 2009 action and the fourth
plaintiff (who did not participate in the January 2009 action)
were dismissed with prejudice.  

On April 2, 2009, the court awarded the two remaining plaintiffs
an aggregate amount of approximately $0.1 million plus attorneys'
fees and costs, which, on June 25, 2009, were determined to be
$0.4 million.  The company appealed both of these decisions.  

Subsequent to the court's April 2, 2009 decision, approximately
172 of the opt-in plaintiffs filed individual actions in the
court.  On Aug. 13, 2009, the company filed a writ of mandamus
challenging the court's jurisdiction to hear these cases.  

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company
operated a total of 1,375 stores in 47 states.  Big Lots, Inc.'s
merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and
Toys, and Other.


CAPITAL ONE: Sued for Doubling Credit Card Interest Rates
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Capital One Bank drastically
increased percentage rates on credit cards -- by 10 percent to
nearly 20 percent -- despite its promises not to, according to a
breach of contract class action in Fulton County Superior Court,
Atlanta.

A copy of the Complaint in Barker, et al. v. Capital One Bank
(USA), N.A., Case No. 2009CV175096 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/17/Banks.pdf

The four named plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Adam Webb, Esq.
          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-0773


CHURCH & DWIGHT: Accused of Deceptive Advertising for Free Item
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Church & Dwight advertises
"free" "Arm & Hammer Whitening Booster" but charges inflated
costs of $5.99 for shipping, a class action claims in Bergen
County Court, Hackensack.

A copy of the Complaint in Hoffman v. Church & Dwight Co. Inc.,
Docket No. BER-L-7944-09; Civil Action No. L-7944-09 (N.J. Super.
Ct., Bergen Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/17/CCAToothpaste.pdf

Mr. Hoffman, a member of the New Jersey Bar, represents himself
and can be reached at:

          Harold M. Hoffman, Esq.
          240 Grand Avenue
          Englewood, NJ 07631
          Telephone: (201) 569-0086


MDL NO. 1840: Costco Settles; Fuel Claims Due by March 2, 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court in In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 1840; Masker Docket No. 07-MD-1840 (U.SD.
Kan.), has preliminarily certified a class comprised of:

     all residents of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
     California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana,
     Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,
     Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North
     Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
     Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, the
     District of Columbia and Guam who purchased
     gasoline from Costco between Jan. 1, 2001, and
     Apr. 22, 2009,

and preliminarily approved a proposed class action settlement.

The complaint alleges that Costco (and others) misled consumers
by marketing motor fuel at temperatures above 60 degrees
Fahrenheit without adjusting for the fuel's temperature.  Costco
denies any wrongdoing.  If the settlement is approved, Costco
will install automatic temperature correcting pumps in certain
states under specified conditions.  Except for the
representatives, the class will not receive any payment.

If you are in the class defined above, your rights may be
affected by this settlement. If you do NOT want to be bound by a
class judgment, the Court will exclude you ONLY if you send a
letter by mail stating: "I request that I be excluded from the
Settlement in In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1840."  You must also include: (1)
your full name and current address; (2) your signature and (3)
proof of gasoline purchase from Costco after Jan. 1, 2001.  You
must postmark your exclusion request to Settlement Administrator,
PO Box 12985, Birmingham, AL 35202-2985 no later than FEBRUARY
23, 2010.  REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION THAT ARE NOT POSTMARKED ON OR
BEFORE FEBRUARY 23, 2010, WILL NOT BE HONORED.

If you do nothing, you WILL be included in the class and will be
bound by the settlement and class judgment. You will not be able
to pursue any other lawsuit against Costco concerning or relating
to the claims alleged in these lawsuits.  You may also file with
the court objections to the settlement by March 2, 2010.  The
Court will hold a hearing in this case on April 1, 2010, to
consider whether to approve the settlement.  You may ask to
appear at the hearing, either in person or through an attorney of
your choosing. For further information regarding the settlement
and your rights to participate or object, visit:

     http://www.Costco.com/fuelsettlement.pdf

or write to Fuel Settlement Notice, PO Box 12985, Birmingham, AL
35202-2985.

Plaintiffs' Class Counsel is:

          Robert A. Horn, Esq.
          Horn Aylward & Bandy, LLC
          2600 Grand Blvd., Ste. 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64108

Costco is represented by:

          David F. McDowell, Esq.
          Morrison & Foerster LLP
          555 W. Fifth St.
          Los Angeles, CA 90013


MEDTRONIC INC: Suits Over Sprint Fidelis Products Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc., continues to face purported class actions in
both U.S. state and federal courts and in Canada over its
recalled Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation leads, according
to the company's Sept. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2009.

On Oct. 15, 2007, the company voluntarily suspended worldwide
distribution of its Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation
leads.  This decision was based on a variety of factors that,
when viewed together, indicated that suspending distribution was
the appropriate action.

At the time, Sprint Fidelis lead viability was trending lower
than other company defibrillation leads, but had not then become
statistically significant.  

The leads are used to deliver therapy in patients with ICDs, but
are generally not used in pacemaker patients.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration subsequently classified
the company's action as a Class I recall.

As of August 1, 2009, approximately 1,350 lawsuits regarding the
Fidelis leads have been filed against the company, including
approximately 37 putative class action suits reflecting a total
of approximately 2,400 individual personal injury cases.

In general, the suits allege claims of product liability,
warranty, negligence, unjust enrichment, emotional distress, and
consumer protection violations.

One lawsuit includes a claim by an individual purporting to act
as a surrogate for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid
Services, and one lawsuit has been brought by a third party
payor as a putative class-action suit.

In addition, one putative class action has been filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada.  

Approximately 485 of the lawsuits have been filed in state court,
generally alleging similar causes of action.  Of those state
court actions, approximately 470 are consolidated before a single
judge in Hennepin County District Court in the state of
Minnesota.  Oral arguments on Medtronic's motion to dismiss the
Minnesota cases were heard on Sept. 4, 2009.  

The federal court cases have been consolidated for pretrial
proceedings before a single federal judge in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to the Multi-
District Litigation (MDL) rules.

On Jan. 5, 2009, the MDL court entered an order dismissing with
prejudice the master consolidated complaint for individuals and
the master consolidated complaint for third party payors on
grounds of federal preemption.  

On May 12, 2009, the MDL court denied plaintiffs' request to file
a motion for reconsideration of the dismissals and plaintiffs'
motion seeking permission to amend the master consolidated
complaint.  The court dismissed with prejudice 229 cases that
adopted the master consolidated complaint and stayed all other
cases pending further order of the court.  Plaintiffs in the 229
cases filed a notice of appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals on May 29, 2009.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in   
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.  


MEDTRONIC INC: Motion to Dismiss Kinetic Knife's Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a putative class action filed
by Kinetic Knife is pending, according to the company's Sept. 9,
2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009.

On Feb. 10, 2005, Medtronic voluntarily began to advise
physicians about the possibility that a specific battery shorting
mechanism might manifest itself in a subset of implantable
cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization
therapy-defibrillators (CRT-Ds).  These included certain Marquis
VR/DR and Maximo VR/DR ICDs and certain InSync I/II/III CRT-D
devices.

Subsequent to this voluntary field action, a number of lawsuits
were filed against the company alleging a variety of claims,
including individuals asserting claims of personal injury and
third party payors alleging entitlement to reimbursement.

One third party payor, Kinetic Knife, dismissed its original
action without prejudice and subsequently filed a putative class
action relating to the same subject matter.  

Medtronic removed the action to federal court in the District of
Minnesota and filed a motion to dismiss.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in   
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.  


MEDTRONIC INC: Merged Product Liability Suit Pending in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pretrial proceedings in a consolidated class action product
liability suit against Medtronic, Inc., in Canada, are underway,
according to its Sept. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2009.

On Feb. 10, 2005, Medtronic voluntarily began to advise
physicians about the possibility that a specific battery shorting
mechanism might manifest itself in a subset of implantable
cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization
therapy-defibrillators (CRT-Ds).  These included certain Marquis
VR/DR and Maximo VR/DR ICDs and certain InSync I/II/III CRT-D
devices.

Subsequent to this voluntary field action, a number of lawsuits
were filed against the company alleging a variety of claims,
including individuals asserting claims of personal injury and
third party payors alleging entitlement to reimbursement.

Class action product liability suits pending in Canada are
consolidated in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  

The court certified a class proceeding on Dec. 6, 2007, and
denied Medtronic's leave to appeal certification on May 15, 2008.  
The class was certified to include individual implant recipients
and their family members.

In addition, the subrogated claims of the provincial health
insurers to recover costs incurred in providing medical services
to the implant class are claimed in the class proceeding.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in   
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.  


MEDTRONIC INC: Appeal of Junked Securities Fraud Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated putative class
action complaint against Medtronic, Inc., is pending before the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  

On Nov. 8, 2007, Stanley Kurzweil filed a putative class action
complaint against the company and certain of its officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The complaint is brought on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased securities of Medtronic during the period of June 25,
2007 through Oct. 15, 2007.

The complaint alleges that "materially false and misleading"
representations were made as to the market acceptance and use of
the Fidelis defibrillator leads to artificially inflate
Medtronic's stock price.

Pursuant to court order, the caption of the case was changed to
Medtronic, Inc., Securities Litigation, and a consolidated
putative class action complaint was filed on April 18, 2008.

On March 10, 2009, the court entered an order dismissing the
complaint with prejudice and denying plaintiffs leave to amend.  
Plaintiffs' motion to alter the judgment was denied on May 29,
2009.  Plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals, according to the company's Sept. 9, 2009, Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 31, 2009.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in   
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.  


MEDTRONIC INC: Appeal of Dismissal of "Brown" ERISA Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal of the dismissal of a putative ERISA class action
complaint against Medtronic, Inc., is pending before the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  

On Aug. 11, 2008, Mark Brown filed a complaint against the
company and certain directors, officers and other company
personnel in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 arising from the same subject matter as the
consolidated putative class complaint.

The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of
participants in and beneficiaries of the Medtronic, Inc. Savings
and Investment Plan, whose individual accounts held shares of
company stock at any time from Feb. 15, 2007 to Nov. 19, 2007.

On Dec. 29, 2008, the plaintiff amended the complaint to add
similar allegations relating to alleged off-label promotion of
INFUSE Bone Graft and to amend the class to include participants
in the plan from Feb. 15, 2007 to Dec. 12, 2008.

The defendants' motion to dismiss was granted on May 26, 2009.  
Plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals, according to the company's Sept. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 31, 2009.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com-- is engaged in   
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.  



MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc., faces a consolidated securities class action
complaint in Minnesota, according to the company's Sept. 9, 2009,
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 31, 2009.

On Dec. 11, 2008, the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief
Association filed a putative class action complaint against the
Company and two of its officers in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota, alleging violations of Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The complaint is brought on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased securities of Medtronic from Nov. 19, 2007 through Nov.
17, 2008.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading public statements concerning the INFUSE Bone Graft
product which artificially inflated Medtronic's stock price
during the period.

On May 28, 2009, the court order appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel.

On Aug. 1, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated putative class
action complaint making similar allegations but expanding the
class to include those persons or entities who purchased
securities of Medtronic from Nov. 20, 2006 to Nov. 17, 2008.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in   
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.  


MEDTRONIC INC: Bid to Nix "Wright" Suit Set for Oct. 19 Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc.'s motion to dismiss Christin Wright's putative
class action complaint is scheduled for hearing on Oct. 19, 2009.

On Feb. 24, 2009, Christin Wright filed a complaint against the
company and certain directors, officers and other company
personnel in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

The complaint was filed purportedly on behalf of a putative class
comprised of participants and beneficiaries of the Medtronic,
Inc. Savings and Investment Plan, whose individual accounts held
shares of company stock at any time from June 28, 2006 to Nov.
18, 2008.

The plaintiff claims the defendants breached fiduciary duties by
allegedly failing to properly disclose the September 2008
settlement of the litigation with Fastenetix, LLC and the October
2008 settlement of the Cordis litigation, according to the
company's Sept. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended
July 31, 2009.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in   
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.  


MICHAEL BAKER: Securities Fraud Settlement Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Baker Corporation (NYSE Amex:BKR) disclosed that on
September 11, 2009, final approval of the settlement was granted
by the Court in Michael Baker Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 08-cv-00370 (W.D. Pa.) (Conti, J.).  The amount of the
settlement, which the Company did not disclose, will be covered
in full by the Company's insurance.

Michael Baker Corporation -- http://www.mbakercorp.com/--  
provides engineering and operations and maintenance services for
its clients' most complex challenges worldwide.  The firm's
primary business areas are aviation, defense, environmental,
facilities, geospatial, homeland security, municipal & civil,
pipelines and utilities, transportation, water, and oil & gas.  
With more than 4,500 employees in over 50 offices across the
United States and internationally, Baker is focused on creating
value by delivering innovative and sustainable solutions for
infrastructure and the environment.


PARIS HILTON: May Face $34 Mil. Suit for European "No-Show"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Economic Times reports that socialite Paris Hilton is facing
a possible $34 million class action lawsuit after she failed to
appear in a series of scheduled events in Italy and Germany.

The promoters booked the 28-year-old beauty to appear at a number
of industry events, but mysterious circumstances led to Hilton
refusing to attend them.

She snubbed one party in Frankfurt, Germany, where she was
expected to be a guest of Hungarian royal Frederic Prinz von
Anhalt's adopted son Marcus.

The hotel heiress was also to appear in top store Mediastar to
choose the winner of a contest.  The store bosses are now
planning to sue her for $7.3 million.

German newspaper Bild reports a $34 million class action suit is
being planned.

Mediastar is not alone with the lawsuit.  Paris Hilton also
pulled out of appearances in Italy, postponed flights, threw the
whole programme over.  "After examination of all the facts and
contracts it (suit) can even become more than 34 million
dollars," Contactmusic quoted Michael Marx, who organised the
events in Germany, as saying.

However, Miss Hilton has hit back at the claims, insisting she
was misled by promoters into making the agreement.

"On arriving in Germany Miss Hilton's security visited the 'night
club' booked for the appearance and discovered it was a strip
club, the venue had been misrepresented to Miss Hilton by the
talent promoters. Miss Hilton does not support or endorse strip
clubs and this type of establishment," said Miss Hilton's
spokesperson.

"Given this blatant and exploitive misrepresentation, the
promoters were in material breach of their contract and Miss
Hilton was, consequently, excused from further obligation to
appear and instead remained in the privacy of her hotel.  Any
other reports of events from this night are fabricated and false.

"Miss Hilton did honour the remainder of her agreement with the
promoters and attended the additional three events in Italy," the
spokesperson added.


PROGRESSIVE CORP: Class Challenges Uninsured Motorist Policy
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that despite a 1994 Ohio Supreme
Court ruling that uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage
follows people, not vehicles, Progressive Casualty Insurance
charges separate premiums for each vehicle in a household, a
class action claims in Lake County Court.  

A copy of the complaint in McFadden v. The Progressive Corp., et
al., Case No. 09CV002886 (Ohio. Ct. Comm. Pleas, Lake Cty.)
(Lucci, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/17/InsureOhio.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
          Andrew Samtoy, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: (440) 352-3391

               - and -

          Ronald A. Margolis, Esq.
          BECKER & MISHKIND CO., L.P.A.
          1660 West 2nd Street, Suite 660
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 241-2600


QUEENSLAND GOV'T: 23 Ipswich Residents Lodge Mining Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that a Brisbane law firm has lodged a class
action in the Supreme Court on behalf of 23 Ipswich residents
whose homes have been damaged by subsidence.  Dozens of
properties were affected at Collingwood Park, west of Brisbane,
ABC relates, in July when the ground shifted above an old mine.

The residents' lawyer:

          Roger Singh, Esq.
          Shine Lawyers
          Level 6, 30 Makerston Street
          Brisbane, QLD, 4000
          AUSTRALIA

says the Queensland Government did not investigate the impact
mining would have on the area and failed to take precautions to
prevent subsidence.

"Our view is the State Government put mining interests and profit
margins above the welfare of residents and as a consequence of
that, residents at Collingwood Park site are paying the price
today," he told ABC News.


SIEMENS USA: Charged with Improperly Denying Jobs to Reservists
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims
Siemens did not hire a military reservist, and found out his
status because its job application has a question asking if
applicants are in the military reserves or the National Guard, in
Memphis Federal Court.  

A copy of the Complaint in Boundy v. Siemens, USA, Case No.
09-cv-02594 (W.D. Tenn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/16/EmploySiemens.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan M. Norwood, Esq.
          Jeffery L. Atchley, Esq.
          NORWOOD & ATCHLEY
          266 South Front Street, Suite 206
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 528-8300
          Fax: (901) 529-9101


STERLING JEWELERS: Female Employees Can Proceed as a Class
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in New York ruled that female
employees at Sterling Jewelers can pursue class action status for
their claims of sex discrimination at the retail chain, according
to JCKonline.com, citing the Cleveland Plain Dealer as its
source.  

The ruling means that 16 women who filed charges alleging unfair
employment practices can try to broaden their complaint to cover
current and former employees corporate wide, JCK says.

Sterling argues that the women can't pursue a class action
because they signed agreements when they were hired to submit
employment disputes to binding arbitration.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Sterling on
behalf of the female employees last September for allegedly
paying their male employees more money.

The Class Action previously reported about Jock, et al. v.
Sterling Jewelers, Inc., Case No. 08-CV-02875 (S.D.N.Y.), on
August 4, 2009.

Counsel to the plaintiffs is:

          Sahar Aziz, Esq.
          Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
          Jenny Rae Yang, Esq.  
          Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC
          Suite 500, West Tower
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 408 4600
          Fax: (202) 408 4699
          E-mail: saziz@cmht.com
                  jsellers@cmht.com
                  jyang@cmht.com

               - and -

          Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          150 East  52nd Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 838-7797
          Fax: (212) 838-7745
          E-mail: lgrant@cmht.com

               - and -

          Loren B. Donnell, Esq.
          Sam J. Smith, Esq.   
          Burr & Smith
          442 W. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Phone: 813 253 2010
          Fax: 813 254 839
          E-mail: ldonnell@burrandsmithlaw.com
                  ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com

               - and -

          John Douglas Richards, Esq.
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212)-661-1100
          Fax: (212)-661-8665  
          E-mail: drichards@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas Warren, Esq.
          Thomas A. Warren Law Offices, P.L
          2032-D Thomasville Blvd
          Tallahassee, FL 32308
          Phone: 850 385 1551
          Fax: 850 385 6008
          E-mail: tw@nettally.com

Defense counsel is:

          Gerald Leonard Maatman, Jr., Esq.
          Seyfarth Shaw LLP
          131 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 460-5000 x5965
          Fax: (312)-460-7965  
          E-mail: gmaatman@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Stephen S. Zashin, Esq.
          Zashin & Rich Co., L.P.A.
          55 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: (216)-696-4441
          Fax: (216)-696-1618
          E-mail: ssz@zrlaw.com


TRUDEAU CORP: Recalls 22,000 Garlic Slicers
-------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Trudeau Corporation, of Canada, announced a voluntary recall of
about 22,000 Trudeau Garlic Duo Slicers.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The garlic duo's slicer blades can break during use, posing a
laceration hazard to users.

Trudeau has received four reports of the product's slicer blades
breaking.  No injuries were reported.

This product is a combination garlic press and slicer. Recalled
model numbers 998009, 998010 or 998010CB were printed on the
product's packing card, hang tag, or UPC label, but not on the
product.  The units have "Trudeau" embossed on the handle.

The product was sold at department and retail stores nationwide
for about $20, and was manufactured in China.

Consumers should stop using the recalled Garlic Duo immediately
and contact Trudeau for directions on how to receive a free
replacement garlic press and a complimentary set of 3 flipper
measuring spoons.  

For additional information, contact Trudeau toll-free at (888)
887 8332 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday to Friday, or visit
the firm's website at http://www.trudeaucorp.com/

To see this recall on CPSC's web site, including pictures of the
recalled products, go to:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09343.html

CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports
that are either directly related to this product recall or
involve a different hazard with the same product at
https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx


VERMILLION PARISH: La. School Board Charged with Sex Segregation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Choate at Courthouse News Service reports that a public
school district is illegally segregating middle-school students
by sex, a mother claims in Federal Court.  The mom says public
schools are allowed to offer sex-segregated classes, but the
Vermillion Parish School Board made it mandatory, and when she
complained, the board said it would put her daughters in "special
needs" classes, which they do not require.

Jane Doe, represented by the ACLU, says she informed the school
board that mandatory sex segregation was illegal, but it went
ahead anyway, forcing her to go to court. She says Rene A. Rost
Middle School refuses to take remedial action and continues to
support unconstitutional, mandatory single-sex classrooms.

On Jan. 24, 2008, the Vermillion Parish School Board adopted a
policy allowing Rost Middle School Principal David Dupuis to
"conduct a study" on sex segregation during the 2008-09 school
year.  This program was expanded in the 2009-10 school year and
parental consent was not sought to experiment upon or "study" the
students, according to the complaint.
     
To give an illusion of choice, the school board sent a letter to
parents that allowed them to choose whether to enroll their
children in single-sex or co-educational classes.  Ms. Doe says
she completed the form and asked that her daughters be placed in
co-educational classes.

She says the school told her that if that's what she wanted, her
daughters would be placed in a "special needs" class, which was
co-educational. Doe says neither of her daughters has "special
needs."

Mr. Dupuis told the newspaper "Abbeville Now" that different
teaching methods will be used with boys and girls, the complaint
states. He said, for example, that boys would be offered books
that appeal to boys, and girls could be read books that appeal to
girls.  

Such comments show that the two gender tracks are not equal and
are precisely the sort of sex stereotyping and discrimination
that Title IX seeks to prevent, Ms. Doe says.  

She says school officials pressured her daughters to consent to
the segregated classes: "[L]ate on Wednesday, September 3, 2009,
Plaintiff Jane Doe learned that her younger daughter, Jill Doe,
was refused admittance to the co-educational class because it is
'full.'  Therefore, despite the express wishes of her parent,
minor Jill Doe is being placed in sex-segregated classrooms.
"The co-educational classes are not 'equal' to the sex-segregated
classes. First, Joan Doe was told that if she wanted to attend
co-educational classes, she would be in the 'special needs'
section. Plaintiff Jill Doe was told that she was 'too smart' for
that."

The mother wants the sex-segregation policies enjoined as
unconstitutional, and costs.

A copy of the Complaint in Doe v. Mermillion Parish School Board,
Case No. 09-cv-01565 (W.D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/17/LaSexSeg.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald L. Wilson, Esq.
          900 Poydras Street, Suite 2556
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 525-4361

               - and -
          
          Katie Schwartzmann, Esq.
          P.O. Box 56157
          New Orleans, LA 70156
          Telephone: (504) 592-8056

               - and -
          
          Emily J. Martin, Esq.
          Lenora M. Lapidus, Esq.
          American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
          Women's Rights Project
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2615


WACHOVIA SECURITIES: Female Workers Allege Gender Bias in Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Roberts at Business Insurance reports that three class
action employment law firms have filed a gender discrimination
suit against Wachovia Securities on behalf of a class of current
and former female financial advisers.

The suit, filed last week in federal district court in
Washington, alleges that since at least March 2003, Wachovia
Securities has "systematically" denied equal employment
opportunities to its female financial advisers with respect to
compensation and promotions, in violation of federal and various
state civil rights laws.

The suit seeks class action status on behalf of all women who
were employed by Wachovia Securities as financial advisers at any
time between March 17, 2003, and the present.

Wachovia Securities became known as Wells Fargo Advisors in May
as a result of Wells Fargo & Co.'s December 2008 acquisition of
Wachovia Corp.  Although the suit names Wells Fargo Advisors and
Wells Fargo & Co. as defendants, the proposed class does not
include legacy Wells Fargo financial advisers, court papers say.

The suit was filed by law firms Mehri & Skalet P.L.L.C., Sprenger
& Lang P.L.L.C. and Moody & Warner P.C., which collectively have
settled similar class action cases on behalf of female employees
at Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., Smith Barney and American Express
Co.

A spokeswoman for Wells Fargo Advisors said in an e-mail that the
company "vigorously disputes" the allegations in the lawsuit.

"The methods, policies and practices used by Wells Fargo Advisors
(formerly Wachovia Securities) in the conduct of its business and
the management of its personnel are in no way discriminatory,
including the policies and procedures governing the assignment of
accounts to our financial advisers and/or the establishment of
financial adviser teams.

"Wells Fargo Advisors does not tolerate discrimination in any
form. This firm has been and remains committed to fostering an
inclusive and diverse workplace and has been an industry leader
in its support of professional development opportunities for
women financial advisers and managers," the spokeswoman told Ms.
Roberts.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

VIVENDI SA: Entwistle Files Shareholder Fraud Suit in S.D.N.Y
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gamco Global Series Funds, Inc., Gabelli Capital Asset Fund, The
Gabelli Value Fund, Inc., The Gabelli Asset Fund, The Gamco
Mathers Fund, The Gabelli Global Multimedia Trust Inc., The
Gabelli Equity Trust Inc., The Gabelli Convertible and Income
Securities Fund, Inc. and Gamco International Growth Fund, Inc.,
accuse Vivendi S.A. of inflating its share price through false
and misleading statements from 2000 through 2002 in a complaint
filed on Sept. 16, 2009.

The case is Gamco Global Series Funds, Inc., et al., v. Vivendi
S.A., Case No. 09-cv-07962 (S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Vincent Roger Cappucci, Esq.
          Shannon Lee Hopkins, Esq.
          Harold F. McGuire, Jr., Esq.
          Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP
          280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 894-7200


WACHOVIA CORP: Grant & Eisenhofer Files Complaint in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deka Investment GmbH, Deka International S.A. Luxemburg, Deka
Fundmaster Investmentgesellschaft MBH, International Fund
Management S.A. Luxemburg and Metzler Investment GmbH accuse
Wachovia Corporation, Wells Fargo & Company, Kennedy G. Thompson,
Thomas J. Wurtz, Donald K. Truslow, Lanty L. Smith and Robert K.
Steel of inflating the price of Wachovia stock through false and
misleading statements, in a complaint filed on Sept. 15, 2009.  

The case is Deka Investment GmbH, et al. v. Wachovia Corp., et
al., Case No. 09-07920 (S.D.N.Y.).  

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Richard Banko, Esq.
          Michele S. Carino, Esq.
          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
          Geoffrey Coyle Jarvis, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER, PA  
          485 Lexington Avenue, 29th floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 646-722-8500
          Fax: 646-722-8501


                            *********

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  * * *