CAR_Public/091001.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 1, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 194
  
                            Headlines

APPLIED ENERGETICS: Securities Class Action Settlement Approved
BANK OF AMERICA: Consolidated Amended Securities Fraud Complaint
C.R. BARD: St. Francis Medical Center's Lawsuit is Dismissed
CACI INTERNATIONAL: Appeals on "Saleh" Remain Under Advisement
CELL GENESYS: Settlement of Consolidated Merger Suit Pending

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Defending "Rivera" Demand in Arbitration
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Arbitration of FMU Students' Claims Ongoing
DIEDRICH COFFEE: Paid Full Settlement of Labor Suit in FY 2009
DIEDRICH COFFEE: "Willems" Settlement Got Final Okay in Sept.
DOMINION TRANSMISSION: Fears Disaster from Class Action Lawsuit

EL POLLO LOCO: Employee Suit filed in Los Angeles County
GILMAN CIOCIA: Shareholder's Suit Over Sale of Offices Ended
GRETNA POLICE: Partial Class Certification for Katrina Victims
HEALTHSOUTH: Settlement of Securities Suit Gets Final Approval
INTERGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: $14 Mil. Ponzi Scam Alleged in N.J.

KAPLAN INC: Cook County Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Overtime
KELLOGG USA: Where's the Fruit in Kellogg's Froot Loops Cereal?
ORACLE CORP: Faces Appeal to Dismissal of Calif. Securities Suit
SARA LEE: Settlement of Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
SKYPE INC: Class Claims Skype Takes Their Money

TAM CAPITAL: Suits by Panama's & Airline Workers' Unions Ongoing

* Class Action Attorney Fee Digest Reaches 700-Case Milestone

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

IMMERSION CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif.
UCBH HOLDINGS: Shalov Stone Files Fraud Complaint in N.D. Calif.

                            *********

APPLIED ENERGETICS: Securities Class Action Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Energetics, Inc. (Nasdaq: AERG) disclosed that the
proposed settlement in Wood, et al. v. Ionatron, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 06-CV-00354 (D. Ariz.), has received final approval.  

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 5, 2009, under
the terms of the settlement of the class action lawsuits, the
underlying securities-related lawsuits are dismissed with
prejudice, and Applied Energetics and all other defendants
receives a full and complete release of all claims asserted
against them in the litigation, in exchange for the payment of an
aggregate of $5.3 million in cash and the issuance of previously
unissued shares of common stock by Applied Energetics valued at
$1.2 million.  Based on the formula set forth in the settlement
agreement, the Company will issue 2,883,887 shares of its common
stock.  There was no admission of liability by any of the
defendants.

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

Joseph Hayden, Chief Operating Officer of Applied Energetics
commented, "As stated in the settlement documents, Applied
Energetics denies any liability in connection with the litigation
and denies the claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the
complaints.  However, Applied Energetics believes this settlement
is in the best interest of Applied Energetics and its
stockholders, as it eliminates the uncertainties, distractions,
burden and further expense associated with the litigations."
About Applied Energetics, Inc.

Applied Energetics, Inc. -- http://www.appliedenergetics.com/--  
is based in Tucson, Arizona, and is a leader in the advancement
and application of high-powered technology and products including
ultra-short pulse lasers, solid state high voltage electronics
and particle acceleration technologies for the defense and
commercial business sectors.  Applied Energetics pioneered the
development of Laser Guided Energy(TM) (LGE(TM)) and the use of
high voltage for counter-IED applications.


BANK OF AMERICA: Consolidated Amended Securities Fraud Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law.com reports that Andrew Longstreth at The American Lawyer
reports that although the rejected Securities and Exchange
Commission settlement with Bank of America for alleged disclosure
deficiencies in BofA's merger with Merrill Lynch has been getting
all the attention, the pending securities class action against
the company could end up being more important -- at least in
terms of BofA's liability.  

On Monday, the lead plaintiffs -- an ad hoc group of public
pension funds from Texas, Ohio, the Netherlands and Sweden -- in
In re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, and ERISA
Litigation, Master File No. 09 MDL 2058 (S.D.N.Y.) (Chin, J.),
filed their consolidated class action complaint against BofA.  

A copy of the highly detailed, 132-page Complaint is available at
http://is.gd/3MBgKfrom the Ohio Attorney General's Web site.

Mr. Longstreth's story is available at http://is.gd/3MBtj


C.R. BARD: St. Francis Medical Center's Lawsuit is Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
John Kell, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that C.R.
Bard Inc. said all counts in a class-action lawsuit captioned St.
Francis Medical Center, et al. v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-cv-00031 (E.D. Mo.), that alleged the company conspired to
exclude competitors from the urological catheter market, have
been dismissed.  

The medical center in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Mr. Kell relates, was
seeking damages of up to $200 million, a figure C.R. Bard said
was "unsupported by the facts."

The maker of medical devices, along with Tyco International Inc.,
had faced a class-action complaint in early 2007 led by Southeast
Missouri Hospital.  The complaint was later amended to add St.
Francis Medical Center and was later renamed when Southeast's
motion to serve as class representative was dismissed. Tyco was
also later removed from the action.

St. Francis further alleged the company sought to maintain market
share by engaging in conduct in violation of state and federal
antitrust laws, C.R. Bard disclosed in its 10-Q Securities and
Exchange Commission filing in July.

St. Francis can appeal the court's decision to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

C. R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- headquartered in  
Murray Hill, N.J., is a leading multinational developer,
manufacturer and marketer of innovative, life-enhancing medical
technologies in the fields of vascular, urology, oncology and
surgical specialty products.


CACI INTERNATIONAL: Appeals on "Saleh" Remain Under Advisement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals on the class-action complaint, Saleh, et al. v. Titan
Corp., et al., remain under advisement by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, according to the
company's Aug. 26, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2009.

Plaintiffs filed a 26-count class-action complaint on June 9,
2004, originally on behalf of seven named Plaintiffs and a class
of similarly situated Plaintiffs, against a number of corporate
Defendants and individual corporate employees.  The complaint,
originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, named CACI International Inc, CACI, INC.-
FEDERAL, and CACI N.V. as Defendants, along with Titan
Corporation.  The complaint also named CACI Premier Technology,
Inc. employee Stephen A. Stefanowicz as a Defendant.

Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that Defendants formed a
conspiracy to increase demand for interrogation services in Iraq
and violated U.S. domestic and international law.  Plaintiffs
seek, inter alia, declaratory relief, a permanent injunction
against contracting with the government, compensatory damages,
treble damages and attorney's fees.

Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint several times and
the action was ultimately transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.  In March 2006, Plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint adding several new counts, adding CACI
Premier Technology, Inc. as a Defendant, dropping CACI, N.V., as
a Defendant, and adding two former CACI Premier Technology
employees, Timothy Dugan and Daniel Johnson, as Defendants.  On
June 29, 2006, the Court entered an Order granting the
Defendants' motions to dismiss with respect to numerous claims,
and granting the motions of the three individual Defendants to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Finally, the Court
consolidated the Saleh and Ibrahim actions for discovery purposes
only.

On Aug. 4, 2006, the CACI Defendants filed a summary judgment
motion.  On Nov. 6, 2007, the Court issued its order denying
CACI's motion for summary judgment.  On Dec. 6, 2007, the Court
denied Plaintiffs' motion to have the action proceed as a class
action.  On Dec. 17, 2007, the Court certified its Nov. 6, 2007
Memorandum Order denying CACI's motion for summary judgment for
interlocutory appeal.  On Jan. 2, 2008, CACI filed a petition
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit asking for acceptance of an interlocutory appeal of the
Court's Nov. 6, 2007 Memorandum Order.  On Jan. 4, 2008, CACI
filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit from the Court's Nov. 6, 2007
Memorandum Order.

On Dec. 17, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint.  
On Jan. 4, 2008, CACI filed a motion to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the Court granted Titan's motion for entry of a
final judgment of the Nov. 6, 2007 Memorandum Order as to Titan,
and on Jan. 17, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from
that final judgment in favor of Titan.

CACI filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit to pursue an interlocutory appeal of
the decision denying its summary judgment motion.  In February
2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
granted CACI's motion to have all trial court proceedings
adjourned until all appeals in the action are resolved.  On March
17, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit granted CACI's request for an interlocutory appeal.

On July 28, 2008, CACI submitted its brief to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding its
interlocutory appeal of the decision denying its summary judgment
motion.  On Oct. 17, 2008, CACI filed its brief in support of its
intervention in Plaintiffs' appeal of the November 2007 decision
by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granting
Titan's summary judgment.  On Feb. 10, 2009, a three-judge panel
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
held a hearing on both appeals and took the matters under
advisement.

CACI International Inc -- http://www.caci.com/-- along with its  
wholly owned subsidiaries and joint ventures, is an international
information systems, technology services and professional
services company.  The company operates in two segments: domestic
operations and international operations.


CELL GENESYS: Settlement of Consolidated Merger Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a consolidated shareholder class action
complaint concerning the proposed merger between Cell Genesys,
Inc. and BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is pending approval by
the California Superior Court in San Mateo County.

On July 1, 2009, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
concerning the proposed merger was filed in California Superior
Court in San Mateo County (Case No. 485528) naming Cell Genesys,
its officers and directors, and BioSante as defendants.

On July 6, 2009, a second putative shareholder class action
lawsuit naming the same parties and containing essentially
identical allegations was filed in California Superior Court in
San Mateo County (Case No. 485613).

On July 8, 2009, a third putative shareholder class action
lawsuit was filed in California Superior Court in San Mateo
County (Case No. 485528), which also named the same parties and
contained essentially identical allegations as the two prior
lawsuits.

On July 15, 2009, the Court consolidated these three lawsuits
into one action and appointed interim lead counsel.

On Aug. 13, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint alleging that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and/or aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties
owed to Cell Genesys stockholders in connection with the proposed
merger, including by failing to engage in a fair sales process,
failing to obtain a fair price for the sale of Cell Genesys, and
failing to provide Cell Genesys stockholders with material
information regarding the proposed merger.

Plaintiffs seek an order certifying the lawsuit as a class
action, injunctive relief to enjoin the merger or, in the event
the merger is completed, a rescission of the merger or rescissory
damages.

Plaintiffs further seek an accounting for all damages and an
award of attorneys' fees and costs.

Solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation, Cell Genesys and the other defendants have entered
into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs' counsel in
the San Mateo County action pursuant to which Cell Genesys, the
other named defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle
the lawsuits subject to court approval.  If the court approves
the settlement, the lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice.

According to HealthSouth Corp.'s Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated Sept. 21, 2009, pursuant
to the Memorandum of Understanding, Cell Genesys has agreed to
pay to plaintiffs' counsel an amount not more than $240,000 as is
approved by court order for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, costs
and expenses in the San Mateo County action and to make certain
additional disclosures, without admitting in any way that the
disclosures are material or otherwise required by law.

Cell Genesys, Inc. -- http://www.cellgenesys.com-- is a  
biotechnology company focused on the development and
commercialization of biological therapies for patients with
cancer.  The company has developed cell-based cancer
immunotherapies and oncolytic virus therapies to treat different
types of cancer.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Defending "Rivera" Demand in Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. defends itself against the allegations
in a putative class-action demand in arbitration, according to
the company's Aug. 25, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2009.

On May 28, 2008, the putative class-action demand in arbitration
captioned, "Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc.," was filed with the American Arbitration
Association.

The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC students from the
Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland campuses.

The arbitration demand alleges violations of California's
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud
and intentional deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
contract and unjust enrichment/restitution, all related to
alleged deficiencies and misrepresentations regarding the HVAC
program at these two campuses.

The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVAC
students in the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland
campuses over the past four years, and seek recovery of
compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89
schools in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario,
Canada.  The company offers a range of diploma programs and
associate's, bachelors and master's degrees.  The training
programs include healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical,
trades, business and information technology.  Since the
company's formation in 1995, it has acquired 74 colleges and has
opened 32 branch campuses.  The company offers online education
to two categories of students, including those attending online
classes exclusively, and those attending a blend of traditional
classroom and online courses.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Arbitration of FMU Students' Claims Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. faces arbitration of the claims filed
by current and former students in the company's Florida
Metropolitan University (FMU) campuses, now known as Everest
University, in Florida and online.

On March 8, 2004, the company was served with two virtually
identical putative class action complaints entitled, "Travis v.
Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida
Metropolitan University," and "Satz v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc.,
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan University."

On April 15, 2005, the company received another complaint
entitled, "Alan Alvarez, et al. v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc.,
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan University,
Inc."

The Alvarez first amended and supplemental complaint named
ninety-nine plaintiffs.  In addition, the court in the Alvarez
case granted the plaintiffs' motion to add an additional seven
plaintiffs to the first amended and supplemental complaint.

The named plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current and former
students in the company's FMU.

The plaintiffs allege that FMU concealed the fact that it is not
accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools and that FMU credits are not
transferable to other institutions.

The Satz and Travis plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees under common law and Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for themselves and all
similarly situated people.

The Alvarez plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of themselves
under common law and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

The arbitrator in the Satz case found for the Company on all
counts in an award on the Company's motion to dismiss.  The
arbitrator also found that Mr. Satz breached his agreement with
FMU by filing in court rather than seeking arbitration and is
therefore responsible to pay FMU's damages associated with
compelling the action to arbitration.  The arbitrator also
declared FMU the prevailing party for purposes of the Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act.  The company is continuing to
pursue its remedies against Mr. Satz related to these findings.

Furthermore, the company affirmatively filed arbitration actions
against Ms. Travis and approximately ninety of the Alvarez
plaintiffs seeking damages for their respective breaches of
their obligations to file in arbitration rather than in court,
and seeking declaratory relief regarding their allegations.  The
arbitrator ruled against the company in its affirmative claims
against Ms. Travis.  The company has prevailed on its motions in
court to dismiss the court actions and compel arbitration in
both the Alvarez and Travis matters.

Ms. Travis has filed a motion to certify a class in her
arbitration proceeding on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, and the company has opposed that motion.

The company and the plaintiffs in the Alvarez and Travis matters
have agreed to consolidate those actions before a single
arbitrator.

Following various procedural steps by the parties, on June 1,
2009, the Florida Circuit Court issued a judgment in the
Company's favor granting summary judgment, finding that FMU had
not violated Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,
dismissing the common law claims against FMU and declaring FMU
the prevailing party for all statutory claims.  Additionally, the
Court denied class certification due to the predominance of
individual issues.  In order to avoid the expense and uncertainty
of an appeal of this dispositive judgment, the company and all of
the named plaintiffs have resolved the consolidated Alvarez and
Travis matters, according to the company's Aug. 25, 2009, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89
schools in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario,
Canada.  The company offers a range of diploma programs and
associate's, bachelors and master's degrees.  The training
programs include healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical,
trades, business and information technology.  Since the
company's formation in 1995, it has acquired 74 colleges and has
opened 32 branch campuses.  The company offers online education
to two categories of students, including those attending online
classes exclusively, and those attending a blend of traditional
classroom and online courses.


DIEDRICH COFFEE: Paid Full Settlement of Labor Suit in FY 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diedrich Coffee, Inc., during the fiscal year 2009, paid
approximately $700,000 to fully settle a purported class-action
suit alleging that the company violated labor laws, according to
its Sept. 22, 2009, Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 24, 2009.

On Sept. 21, 2006, a purported class-action complaint entitled,
"Jason Reid; Kimberly Cornia, et al. v. Diedrich Coffee, et
al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California by two former employees, who worked in
the positions of team member and shift manager.

The case involves the issue of whether employees and former
employees who worked in California stores during specified time
periods were deprived of overtime pay, missed meal and rest
breaks.

In addition to unpaid overtime, this case seeks to recover
waiting time penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and other
types of relief on behalf of the current and former employees in
the purported class.

The company has entered into a settlement with the plaintiffs in
the lawsuit.  This settlement has been given preliminary
approval by the court.   A final approval hearing was set for
April 27, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 28, 2009).

Diedrich Coffee, Inc. -- http://www.diedrich.com/-- is a
specialty coffee roaster, wholesaler and retailer.  The company
sells brewed, espresso-based and various blended beverages
primarily made from its own fresh roasted premium coffee beans,
as well as light food items, whole bean coffee and accessories,
through company operated and franchised retail locations.


DIEDRICH COFFEE: "Willems" Settlement Got Final Okay in Sept.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diedrich Coffee, Inc., on Sept. 14, 2009, received an Order of
Final Approval for its settlement of a purported class-action
lawsuit over allegations that it violated California labor laws.

The purported class-action complaint is entitled, "Deborah
Willems, et al. v. Diedrich Coffee, et al."  It was filed in
Orange County, California Superior Court on Feb. 2, 2007, on
behalf of another former employee who worked in the position of
general manager.

The case involves the issue of whether employees and former
employees who worked in California stores during specified time
periods were deprived of overtime pay, missed meal and rest
breaks.

In addition to unpaid overtime, the case seeks to recover
waiting time penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and other
types of relief on behalf of the current and former employees in
the purported class.

The company entered into a settlement with the plaintiffs in the
Willems v. Diedrich lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 28,
2009).

As of June 2009, the company estimated that the required amount
to settle this claim is $376,000 and has recorded an accrual for
this amount, according to Diedrich Coffee's Sept. 22, 2009, Form
10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended June 24, 2009.

Diedrich Coffee, Inc. -- http://www.diedrich.com/-- is a
specialty coffee roaster, wholesaler and retailer.  The company
sells brewed, espresso-based and various blended beverages
primarily made from its own fresh roasted premium coffee beans,
as well as light food items, whole bean coffee and accessories,
through company operated and franchised retail locations.


DOMINION TRANSMISSION: Fears Disaster from Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran at The West Virginia Record reports that Dominion
Transmission, Inc., claims it faces the possibility of bankruptcy
and of being forced to lay off all its employees if Drilco Oils
and Gas Corporation is allowed to shut down its wells and to buy
its meters.

In Drilco Oils & Gas Corp. v. Dominion Transmission, Inc., Case
No. 09-cv-959 (S.D. W.Va.), Drilco asserts class action claims
that Dominion is forcing it to sell all its meters to Dominion
and that Dominion is shutting down Drilco's wells and taking them
out of production for an unspecified period of time while it
makes changes.

Under an agreement, Drilco transfers natural gas to Dominion from
wells, according to the complaint Drilco filed in Roane Circuit
Court on Aug. 3, and then transferred to federal court.  

Drilco operates 113 oil and gas wells in central West Virginia,
and about 80 percent of those wells are contracted to Dominion,
according to an affidavit filed by Drilco's President Hugh D.
Dale Jr.

"Averaged over a year Drilco receives approximately $51,000 per
month or $609,200 per year from the wells that feed the Dominion
lines which is the great majority of annual income of Drilco,"
Dale's affidavit states.

The wells all possess meters that calculate and record the amount
of natural gas being transferred from Drilco to Dominion, the
suit states.

A few months ago, Dominion contacted Drilco and various other
companies to say that it overpaid Drilco and the other companies
for wells, the complaint says. In turn, Dominion requested an
audit and meter charts, Drilco claims.

So Drilco sent the requested documents to Gas Analytical Service,
which subsequently lost the paperwork, according to the
complaint.

After the lost paperwork, Dominion raised a number of other
issues with Drilco, and the two companies decided to meet on June
30. During the meeting, Drilco and Dominion agreed to a number of
unspecified acts which Drilco claims it has performed.

Nevertheless, Drilco received a letter from Dominion on July 29
forcing it to sell meters, advising Drilco that Dominion was
shutting down its wells for an unspecified period of time on Aug.
4 and informing Drilco that it will operate all gas measuring and
payment determinations in the future, according to the complaint.

However, in his letter to Drilco, Dominion's manager Daniel T.
Stuart says Drilco has not fulfilled its obligation to correct
deficiencies discussed during the meeting and has not provided
Dominion with necessary charts and information. In addition,
Stuart informed Drilco that Dominion is forced to shut down all
meters because it has to reset the meters to their original
integrity and to make access roads acceptable.

But Drilco maintains Dominion is not legally allowed to take such
actions.

"Drilco also considers it a total usurpation and illegal seizure
of Drilco's assets (well meters and wells) without compensation
and also as an act that will bankrupt Drilco as its revenues are
mainly based [in] the sale of the natural gas from its wells to
Dominion under the existing contracts," the suit states.

Dominion is attempting to take total control of the accounting,
production revenue, gas measurement and other aspects of the
natural gas marketing facet of the industry, Drilco says.

"Apparently, rather than proceeding directly against those
natural gas producers that Dominion believes have been
intentionally cheating, falsifying and/or exaggerating their
natural gas production, Dominion has elected to undertake an ill
considered 'purge' towards a number of other of its natural gas
producers in addition to that now being initiated against
Drilco," the complaint says.

In its complaint, Drilco is seeking a preliminary injunction, and
eventually a permanent injunction, against Dominion preventing it
from undertaking control of its wells and meters, plus
compensatory damages for lost production revenues and punitive
and exemplary damages, plus other relief the court seems just.
Drilco is also asking the court to certify the case as a class
action.

Dominion contends Drilco is not entitled to any damages, in part
because it failed to mitigate damages. In addition, money Drilco
seeks in the complaint may be reduced by any amounts it owes to
Dominion, the oil company claims.

In its answer to the complaint, Dominion is asking the court to
dismiss Drilco's complaint.

Dominion filed a counter-complaint against Drilco seeking
compensatory and punitive damages, as well as preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, plus attorneys' fees, costs and
other relief the court deems just.

In its counterclaim, Dominion says Drilco is guilty of failing to
perform its obligations under an agreement and failed to comply
with Dominion's gas tariff.

Dominion removed the case to federal court because it involves a
federal question that a federal court should answer.

In addition, Drilco's case involves a diversity of citizenship
because Dominion is incorporated under Delaware law and Drilco is
a West Virginia corporation. Other companies that may be included
in the class action suit are probably also residents of different
states.

Dominion is represented by:

          W. Henry Lawrence, IV, Esq.
          Amy M. Smith, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON
          P. O. Box 2190
          Clarksburg, WV 26302-2190
          Telephone: 304/624-8000
          Fax: 304/624-8183
          E-mail: Hank.Lawrence@steptoe-johnson.com
                  Amy.Smith@steptoe-johnson.com

               - and -  

          Jacqueline A. Wilson, Esq.  
          DOMINION RESOURCES SERVICES, INC.
          445 West Main Street
          Clarksburg, WV 26301
          Telephone: 304/627-3343
          Fax: 304/627-3305
          E-mail: Jacqueline_A_Wilson@dom.com

Drilco is represented by:

          Larry L. Skeen, Esq.
          SKEEN & SKEEN
          108 Hills Plaza
          Charleston, WV 25312
          Telephone: 304/344-4748
          Fax: 304/720-9070
          E-mail: lskeen@suddenlinkmail.com


EL POLLO LOCO: Employee Suit filed in Los Angeles County
--------------------------------------------------------
Ventura v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., Case No. BC422175 (Calif. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty.), alleging labor law violations, was filed
on Sept. 21, 2009, by:

          Brian S. Kesluk, Esq.
          David A. Cohn, Esq.
          KESLUK & SILVERSTEIN, P.C.
          9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 411
          Los Angeles, CA 90069-3309
          Telephone: 310-273-3180


GILMAN CIOCIA: Shareholder's Suit Over Sale of Offices Ended
------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder's class action and derivative complaint filed
against Gilman Ciocia, Inc. has ended, according to the company's
Sept. 25, 2009, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

On Feb. 4, 2004, the company was served with the Summons and a
Shareholder's Class Action and Derivative Complaint, Gary
Kosseff, Plaintiff, against James Ciocia, Thomas Povinelli,
Michael Ryan, Kathryn Travis, Seth A. Akabas, Louis P. Karol,
Edward Cohen, Steven Gilbert and Doreen Biebusch, Defendants and
Gilman & Ciocia, Inc., Nominal Defendant.

The nature of the action is that the company, its board of
directors and its management, breached their fiduciary duty of
loyalty in connection with the sale of certain of the Company's
offices.  The action was filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware in and for New Castle County under Civil Action
No. 188-N.  

The case was scheduled for trial on June 4, 2007.  The trial was
postponed without a new date pending settlement negotiations.  

On Feb. 15, 2008, a written Settlement Agreement was executed
settling the lawsuit, subject to approval by the Court of
Chancery.

At a hearing on Sept. 22, 2008, the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware approved the Settlement Agreement and
reserved decision on setting an award of attorney's fees and
expenses for plaintiff's counsel.

On Oct. 31, 2008, Master in Chancery Sam Glasscock III issued a
Master's Final Report awarding the plaintiff's attorney's fees in
the amount of $1.2 million together with out-of-pocket costs in
the amount of $0.1 million.   The company filed an exception
contesting the Master's Final Report with the Court of Chancery,
which was denied during the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The award of attorneys' fees and out-of-pocket costs was then
paid by the company's Executive Liability and Organization
Reimbursement Policy with National Union Fire Insurance Company
of Pittsburgh, PA, ending the lawsuit.  

Gilman Ciocia, Inc. -- http://www.gilcio.com/-- provides  
federal, state and local tax preparation services to individuals,
predominantly in the middle and upper income tax brackets,
accounting services to small and midsize companies and financial
planning services, including securities brokerage, investment
management services, insurance and financing services.


GRETNA POLICE: Partial Class Certification for Katrina Victims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Purpura at The Times-Picayune reports that a federal judge
has partially certified a class action lawsuit against the Gretna
Police Department and the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office for
barring pedestrians from crossing the Crescent City Connection in
the days after Hurricane Katrina.

U.S. District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon on Monday ruled that one
of three proposed subclasses can move forward to trial as a
class: A group of about 200 Regional Transit Authority employees,
their families and friends who tried to cross the bridge the day
after the Aug. 29, 2005, storm whose tidal surge caused levee
failures that flooded the city.

The ruling leaves the plaintiffs' attorneys considering whether
to amend their case to name as many as 140 people as individuals
who do not fall under a subclass.

Attorneys on both sides of the case considered the ruling a
victory.

"I'm happy with the ruling, and I understand why it is what it
is," Baton Rouge attorney Adele Owen, Esq., said.

Representing Gretna, Franz Zibilich, Esq.. said, "We are
extremely pleased with the court's ruling."

A trial date has not been set. "If it doesn't settle, then it
will go to trial," Ms. Owen said.

Owen sought certification for three subclasses, organized in
groups of people by the day they tried to cross the bridge and
the circumstances under which they tried.  Judge Lemmon found
that two of the subclasses did not meet the four criteria
required in class certification.

Judge Lemmon declined to certify class for a group of more than
800 people who tried to walk up the Tchoupitoulas Street onramp
on Sept. 1, 2005.  That group was turned away by Gretna police
officers, including one who fired a shotgun into the air, court
records show.

Judge Lemmon also denied certification for a group of about 20
who tried to cross on the Pontchartrain Expressway on Thursday,
Sept. 2, 2005.

Ms. Owen said people potentially falling under those categories
still have legal claims in the lawsuit.  "Everybody's individual
claims are preserved," she said.

The case has six named plaintiffs: Nina Alexander, Jocelyn Askew,
Quinton Askew, Frances B. Bowie, Signora Durette and Patryce
Jenkins.

The people in the RTA class rode out the storm at the agency's
administrative building on Canal Street.  They tried to cross on
Aug. 30, 2005.  Ms. Alexander said in a deposition last year that
the people walked through flooding about five feet deep to get to
the bridge, where officers barred them from crossing.  They were
able to cross on buses about an hour later, and they were left at
the bus terminal in Gretna under the elevated West Bank
Expressway.

That's when Gretna police pulled up in cars, she said.

"Then they jumped out, and they cocked their gun and said, 'Don't
nobody f---ing move.  If you move, you going to get shot.  If we
see somebody from this spot, we going to shoot them,'" Ms.
Alexander, 28, said in the deposition.

Most of the officers left them there to respond to a report of a
New Orleans police officer being shot in Algiers, she said. After
about an hour under the expressway, they were taken by bus to an
RTA facility in Algiers, where they boarded charter buses that
took them to Baton Rouge, Ms. Alexander testified.

Mr. Zibilich attacked the class, saying they were able to
evacuate the area.

"This is a very slight inconvenience considering the state of
affairs in those first days after the storm," Mr. Zibilich said.   
"We consider today's ruling another victory in this lawsuit."
The Sheriff's Office's attorney, Danny Martiny, Esq., and Mr.
Zibilich opposed class certification.  In court documents, Mr.
Martiny argued that none of the proposed class members "had any
interaction with any member" of the Sheriff' Office.

The blockade led to four lawsuits in federal court against Gretna
and the Sheriff's Office. One has been dismissed entirely, and
the Sheriff's Office settled in another lawsuit in which Gretna
was dismissed as a defendant.


HEALTHSOUTH: Settlement of Securities Suit Gets Final Approval  
--------------------------------------------------------------
The final court order approving the settlement in the federal
consolidated class action captioned In re HealthSouth Corp.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. CV-03-BE-1500-S, is no
longer subject to appeal as of Sept. 15, 2009.

According to HealthSouth Corp.'s Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated Sept. 21, 2009, pursuant
to the terms of the Settlement, the company agreed to issue an
aggregate of 5,023,732 shares of its common stock, par value $.01
per share and 8,151,265 warrants to purchase its common stock as
part of the consideration for the settlement and release of
claims against the company.  Under the terms of the settlement
agreement, the Settlement Securities represented consideration
valued at $215,000,000.  The company anticipates issuing the
Settlement Securities on Sept. 30, 2009.

The company will not receive any cash proceeds in connection with
the issuance of any of the Settlement Securities.  The terms and
conditions of the issuance of the Settlement Securities in
connection with the Settlement were approved, after a hearing
upon the fairness of such terms and conditions at which all
persons to whom it was proposed to issue the Settlement
Securities in the class action had the right to appear, by the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.  
Accordingly, the Settlement Securities are being issued in
reliance on the exemption from registration under Section
3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

Each Settlement Warrant confers upon its holder the right, which
may be exercised on any business day until 5:00 p.m. on Jan. 17,
2017, to purchase from the company one share of its common stock
upon payment of the exercise price of $41.40 per share.  

HealthSouth Corp. -- http://www.healthsouth.com/-- provides  
inpatient rehabilitative services.  Operating in 26 states across
the country and in Puerto Rico, HealthSouth serves more than
250,000 patients annually through its network of inpatient
rehabilitation hospitals, long-term acute care hospitals,
outpatient rehabilitation satellites, and home health agencies.
HealthSouth strives to be the nation's preeminent provider of
inpatient rehabilitation services.


INTERGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: $14 Mil. Ponzi Scam Alleged in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a web of people and
companies took more than $14 million from 900 victims in a Ponzi
scam, a class action claims in Monmouth County Court.  The class
claims Interglobal Technologies and Michael Tomayko, who already
have been sued by the SEC, led the scam, which involved at least
seven other businesses and five other people.

The class claims "that the defendants simply conspired to commit
widespread fraud to illegally steal money from plaintiff and over
900 others, and then convert the money for their own personal
uses.  The defendants, through illegal practices, raised over
$14.5 million from 900 'investors' -- will or otherwise --
through a fraudulent, unregistered offering of preferred stock
and joint venture interests in defendant IGT.  During such
actions, the defendant knowingly and fraudulently used false and
fabricated information to lure investors."

The class claims that Mr. Tomayko and Interglobal settled the SEC
lawsuit in May 2008 and agreed to pay $100,000 in fines and
disgorge more than $10.5 million.  "The criminal investigation
continues," according to the complaint.  "Plaintiff and others
similarly situated have not been paid back a dime."

Here are the defendants: Dwayne Long, Citywide Financial Services
Corp., Lee Schulz, Lee Schulz Financial Services, Linda Palmer,
Noemie Dodakian, Michael Tomayko, Canady Holding LLC, Terry
Crowdy, Jubilee Ventures, Jubilee Membership Club, Preferred
Interest Leasing Ltd., Inter Global Technologies Inc., and the
DCSTH Foundation.

A copy of the Complaint in Schuren, et al. v. Long, et al.,
Docket No. MON-L-4254-09 (N.J. Super. Ct., Monmouth Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/29/NJStockScam.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eugene M. LaVergne, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE M. LaVERGNE
          241 Monmouth Road
          West Long Branch, NJ 07764
          Telephone: 732-728-2500
          Fax: 732-728-0500


KAPLAN INC: Cook County Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Slayton v. Kaplan, Inc., et al., Case No. 2009-CH-35412 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), alleging that the test preparation service
fails to pay employees overtime, was filed on Sept. 24, 2009, by:

          Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
          Peter E. Converse, Esq.
          CONVERSE & BROWN, LLC
          105 West Adams Street, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312-789-9700


KELLOGG USA: Where's the Fruit in Kellogg's Froot Loops Cereal?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Werbel v. Kellogg USA, Case No. 09-cv-44571 (N.D. Calif),
complaining that Kellogg's Froot Loops cereal contains no actual
fruit of any kind while product's name and principal display
panel suggest otherwise, was filed on Sept. 22, 2009, by:

          Jeffrey Saul Kravitz, Esq.
          KRAVITZ LAW OFFICE
          2310 J. Street, Suite A
          Sacramento, CA 95816
          Telephone: (916) 553-4072
          Fax: (916) 553-4074
          E-mail: KravitzLaw@aol.com


ORACLE CORP: Faces Appeal to Dismissal of Calif. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oracle Corp. faces the plaintiffs' appeal to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California's dismissal of the
consolidated class-action lawsuit, In Re: Oracle Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-0988.

Initially, stockholder class actions were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
the company and its chief executive officer on and after March
9, 2001 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16, 2008).

Between March 2002 and March 2003, the court dismissed the
plaintiffs' consolidated complaint, first amended complaint and
a revised second amended complaint.  The last dismissal was with
prejudice.

On Sept. 1, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

The revised second amended complaint named the company's chief
executive officer, its then chief financial officer (who
currently is chairman of the company's board of directors) and a
former executive vice president as defendants.

This complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period from Dec. 14, 2000, through
March 1, 2001.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the company's actual and expected
financial performance and the performance of certain of the
company's applications products, while certain individual
defendants were selling Oracle stock in violation of federal
securities laws.

They further alleged that certain individual defendants sold
Oracle stock while in possession of material non-public
information.  In addition, they also allege that the defendants
engaged in accounting violations.

The suit seeks unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief.

On July 26, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment against all defendants and a motion for summary
judgment against the company's CEO.

In August 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended versions of these
motions.  The parties' summary judgment motions are fully
briefed.

On Oct. 5, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a default
judgment against the defendants or various other sanctions
because of the defendants' alleged destruction of evidence.  The
motion is fully briefed.

A hearing on all these motions was held on Dec. 20, 2007.  The
court has not yet ruled on any of these motions.

On April 7, 2008, the case was reassigned to a new judge, who
has scheduled a status conference for July 18, 2008.

On June 27, 2008, the court ordered supplemental briefing on the
plaintiffs' sanctions motion.

On Sept. 2, 2008, the court issued an order denying plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment against all defendants.  The order
also denied in part and granted in part plaintiffs' motion for
sanctions.  The court denied plaintiffs' request that judgment
be entered in plaintiffs' favor due to the alleged destruction
of evidence, and the court found that no sanctions were
appropriate for several categories of evidence.  The court found
that sanctions in the form of adverse inferences were
appropriate for two categories of evidence:

       -- e-mails from the company's Chief Executive Officer's
          account, and

       -- materials that had been created in connection with a
          book regarding the company's Chief Executive Officer.

The court then denied defendants' motion for summary judgment
and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against the
company's Chief Executive Officer and directed the parties to
revise and re-file these motions to clearly specify the precise
contours of the adverse inferences that should be drawn, and to
take these inferences into account with regard to the propriety
of summary judgment.

The court also directed the parties to address certain legal
issues in the briefing.  A briefing scheduled for these revised
summary judgment motions has not yet been set.

On Oct. 13, 2008, the parties participated in a court-ordered
mediation, which did not result in a settlement.  On Oct. 20,
2008, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and
plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment against the
company's Chief Executive Officer.  The parties also filed
several motions challenging the admissibility of the testimony
of various expert witnesses.  Opposition briefs were filed on
Nov. 17, 2008, and reply briefs were filed on Dec. 12, 2008.  A
hearing on all these motions was held on Feb. 13, 2009.

On June 16, 2009, the court issued an order granting defendants'
motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment against the company's Chief Executive Officer,
and it entered a judgment dismissing the entire case with
prejudice.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief.

On July 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, according
to the company's Sept. 21, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
Aug. 31, 2009.

The suit is In Re: Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
01-CV-0988 (N.D. Calif.) (Illston, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
         Andrus Liberty & Anderson LLP
         1438 Market Street
         San Francisco, CA 94102
         Phone: 415-896-1000
         Fax: 415-896-2249
         E-mail: jennie@libertylawoffice.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Dorian Daley, Esq.
         500 Oracle Parkway
         Redwood City, CA 94065
         Phone: 650-506-5200
         Fax: 650-506-7114


SARA LEE: Settlement of Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
has yet to grant final approval on the proposed settlement of a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against
Sara Lee Corp.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to allege economic
loss causation because they did not indicate how the alleged
fraud caused their economic loss.  The court noted that the
allegation that stock prices were inflated alone was
insufficient.

Initially, John Gallo, a purported company stockholder, filed
the putative class-action lawsuit on May 13, 2003, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf
of purchasers of the company common stock between and including
Aug. 1, 2002, and April 24, 2003.

The complaint named the company, C. Steven McMillan, former
chairman, president and chief executive officer of the company,
and Lambertus M. de Kool, executive vice president and chief
financial and administrative officer of the company, as
defendants.

The suit seeks, among other things, class action certification,
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and an award of
costs and expenses, including counsel fees.

Seven other putative class-action suits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, naming the
same defendants.  The allegations in each of those complaints
are substantially similar to the allegations asserted in the
first lawsuit.

Each of the foregoing actions was later consolidated in a single
proceeding captioned "In re Sara Lee Corp. Securities
Litigation."

The consolidated amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs
contains similar allegations that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by allegedly
misstating or omitting material adverse facts regarding the
company's business, operations, management and financial
statements, and the value of the company common stock, which
allegedly enabled the company to complete securities offerings,
enabled the individual defendants to increase their bonus
compensation and caused the purported class to purchase the
company common stock at artificially inflated prices.  The
consolidated amended complaint, however, omitted the previous
allegations that the individual defendants or other insiders
sold their personally held company stock to the public at
artificially inflated prices.

On March 5, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  The motion was denied by the
court.  On Oct. 19, 2005, the company filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings based on the plaintiffs' failure to
adequately plead loss causation.  The motion was fully briefed
at the end of November 2005.

On July 10, 2006, the motion was granted and the case has been
dismissed.  The court found that the plaintiffs failed to allege
and prove that the defendants' misrepresentations and other
fraudulent conduct proximately caused plaintiffs' economic
losses.

On July 24, 2006, plaintiffs moved for relief from final
judgment and for leave to amend the consolidated amended
complaint under Federal Rules 15(a), 59(e), and 60(b).  Briefing
on plaintiffs' motion was completed on Oct. 13, 2006, and the
company is awaiting the court's ruling.

Sara Lee received a settlement demand and the parties are
negotiating a settlement.

A mediation was held on June 10, 2009, at which time an agreement
in principle to settle the action was reached by the parties.  
The bulk of the settlement will come from insurance proceeds; no
settlement amounts will come from any individual director or
officer.  A court approval is required before any settlement can
be finalized and the litigation terminated.  
The company anticipates that final approval and dismissal of the
case will be granted by calendar year end, according to the
company's Aug. 26, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
27, 2009.

The suit is In Re: Sara Lee Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 03-CV-3202 (N.D. Ill.) (Norgle, J.)

Representing the plaintiffs are:

        Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
        One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
        New York, NY, 10119
        Phone: 212-594-5300
        Fax: 212-868-1229
        E-mail: info@milbergweiss.com

               - and -  

        Miller, Faucher & Cafferty, LLP
        30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
        Chicago, IL 60602
        Phone: 312-782-4880

               - and -

        Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Eiger, P.C.
        200 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 2100
        Chicago, IL 60601
        Phone: 312-346-3100

             - and -

        Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
        3 Bala Plaza E
        Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
        Phone: 610-667-7706
        Fax: 610-667-7056
        E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


SKYPE INC: Class Claims Skype Takes Their Money
-----------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that Skype, the
Internet videophone service, illegally takes money from what it
calls "inactive" customer accounts, a class action claims in
Federal Court.  Skype says customers' credit balances are "lost"
if they don't use the money within 180 days, but the company just
takes the money, the class claims.

This violates the Gift Cards and Consumer Protection Statutes,
according to the complaint.

Ebay, Skype's parent company, is also named as a defendant.

The class wants its money back and wants Skype enjoined from
doing it again.

A copy of the Complaint in Barker, et al. v. Skype Inc., et al.,
Case No. 09-cv-1364 (W.D. Wash.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/29/SkypeCCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roger M. Townsend, Esq.
          Daniel F. Johnson, Esq.
          BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND, PLLC
          1111 Third Avenue, Suite 2230
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: 206-652-8660

               - and -  

          Scott A. Burroughs, Esq.
          DONIGER / BURROUGHS APC
          300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 355
          Culver City, CA 90230-8704
          Telephone: (310) 590-1780


TAM CAPITAL: Suits by Panama's & Airline Workers' Unions Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
TAM Capital Inc. remains a party to five class actions, all by
the airline workers' union.

The total assessed value of those actions was approximately
BRL185.5 million at Dec. 31, 2007, and according to the company's
legal advisors, BRL7.0 million correspond to claims with a remote
chance of loss, BRL165.6 million correspond to claims with a
possible chance of loss, and BRL12.8 million correspond to claims
with a probable chance of loss.

The company has established provisions totaling BRL13 million at
Dec. 31, 2007, in respect of all of these claims.

For specific actions the company has made court deposits totaling
BRl12 million to address labor claims.  The provision is based on
the company's management's estimate as to likely losses it might
incur as a result of the various labor claims filed by current or
former employees, according to the company's
Sept. 1, 2009 Amendment No. 1 to Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2007.

TAM Capital Inc. -- http://www.tam.com.br/-- is engaged in
aircraft acquisition and financing.  The company is the wholly
owned subsidiary of TAM S.A.  TAM S.A. is engaged in investing
in companies, which carry out air transportation activities.
TAM S.A.'s principal subsidiaries include TAM Linhas Aereas S.A.
(TLA), which is engaged in the operation of the transportation
of passengers and cargo within Brazil and on international
routes, and Transportes Aereos del Mercosur S.A. (Mercosur), an
airline, which operates in Paraguay, Argentina, Brazil, Chile,
Uruguay and Bolivia.


* Class Action Attorney Fee Digest Reaches 700-Case Milestone
-------------------------------------------------------------
Octagon Publishing, Inc.'s Class Action Attorney Fee Digest has
been steadily publishing information on attorney fees in class
actions and, as of August, it has reached 700 cases reported.
Although a matter of public record, most class action settlements
go largely unnoticed.  With the advent of this legal journal in
2007, tracking these fees became much easier.

Editor-in-Chief, Stuart J. Logan, has been tracking class action
settlements for twenty-five years.  He described the response.  
"Readers were so excited about our research that they asked for
more details.  Could we also tell them about objectors and opt-
outs and notice provisions?  Could we tell them how long cases
lasted? The answer is yes.  If we can find it, we give it to
them."

Produced by Octagon Publishing, Inc., a small independent
publisher, the Digest contains articles on at least twenty class
actions in each monthly issue.  These cases come from all over
the country in federal and state courts.  Most cases they write
about are not available in the usual electronic sources.

It has been interesting to watch the Digest evolve.  One
development in the second year was to assemble cases by circuit.
Each issue -- conveniently tracking the twelve federal circuits
in each of the twelve monthly issues -- provides a chart with the
bare essentials of all the previously reported cases in that
circuit.  With a quick glance, class action lawyers can get a
sense of what is happening in their area.

Also insightful are the frequent articles by Professor William B.
Rubenstein of Harvard Law School.  His column, The Expert's
Corner, highlights aspects of the class action law debate.  His
breezy style cuts through the rhetoric and gets the reader
thinking about his subjects in new ways.

Class Action Attorney Fee Digest has been a welcome addition to
the legal research market for all class action practitioners --
whether plaintiff counsel or defense counsel -- as well as judges
and academics.

Octagon Publishing, Inc. is a small independent publishing
company based in Washington, D.C., that provides products and
services focusing on class action cases and the attorney fees
awarded.  Its flagship publication is Class Action Attorney Fee
Digest.  It also offers smaller, issue-based quarterlies.  The
staff offers legal research and consulting services for current
attorney fee petitions.

     CONTACT:  Stuart J. Logan, Editor-in-Chief
               Octagon Publishing, Inc.
               1929 18th St. NW, #1138
               Washington, DC 20009-1710
               Telephone: (202) 213-0430
               http://www.OctagonPublishing.com/


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

IMMERSION CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
On September 28, 2009, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Immersion Corporation (NASDAQ:IMMR)
between May 4, 2007 and June 30, 2009 against certain officers
and directors of Immersion pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC [17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5].

The case name is styled Buell v. Victor Viegas, et al.  The civil
action number is 09-cv-4561.  A copy of the complaint filed in
this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Web site at
http://www.whafh.com/

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
Defendants knowing concealed material information from the
investing public. Defendants knew that that Company's revenue
recognition practices for the Medical line of business failed to
comply with GAAP. Defendants also knew that Immersion's reported
revenue and earnings were materially overstated, as a result of
improper accounting practices.

The Company's stock was greatly inflated by the false statements
and misleading financial reports prepared by the Defendants.

On July 1, 2009, the Company issued a press release entitled
"Immersion Corporation Announces Internal Investigation."  The
market reacted quickly and decidedly negatively to the news, the
Company's stock spiraled down over 23% from its previous closing
price of $4.94 per share to a closing price of $3.80 per share on
July 1, 2009, on a volume of 1.5 million shares.

In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements
described in the complaint, and the deceptive and manipulative
devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiff
and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on
the integrity of the market price of Immersion common stock.  Had
plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth,
they would not have purchased Immersion securities at the
inflated prices that were paid.

If you purchased Immersion common stock, you may request that the
Court appoints you as lead plaintiff no later than November 2,
2009.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately
represent the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more
class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your
ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the
decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may
retain Wolf Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to
serve as your counsel in this action.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm
has approximately 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and
offices in Chicago, New York City, San Diego, and West Palm
Beach. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder
and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the
courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex
securities multi-district and consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone at (800) 575-0735
(Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq., or Derek
Behnke), via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com or visit our website
at http://www.whafh.com/  

All e-mail correspondence should make reference to Immersion.


UCBH HOLDINGS: Shalov Stone Files Fraud Complaint in N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nygaard, et al. v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
09-cv-04505 (N.D. Calif.), alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act, was filed on Sept. 24, 2009, by:

          Amanda C. Scuder, Esq.
          Ralph M. Stone, Esq.
          SHALOV STONE BONNER & ROCCO LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 239-4340
          Fax: (212) 239-4310
          E-mail: ascuder@lawssb.com
                  rstone@lawssb.com

               - and -  

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          GREEN WELLING, P.C.
          595 Market Street, Suite 2750
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700
          Fax: (415) 477-6710


                            *********

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  * * *