CAR_Public/091006.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 6, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 197
  
                            Headlines

AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Lawsuit Says Xerox's Buyout Offer Inadequate
ALTERNATIVE DEBT: Suit Calls Timeshare & Vacation Exchange a Scam
ALTRIA: JPMDL Transfers Eight Light Cigarette Cases to Maine
AMAZON.COM: Settles Orwellian Kindle Book Deletion Lawsuit
ARGENTINA: S.D.N.Y. Rejects Banco de la Nacion Alter Ego Claims

ARIZONA HEALTH: Suit Seeks Payment for Incontinence Briefs
ATRINSIC INC: Defends Suits Over Marketing Practices Violations
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Creighton's "No Late Fees" Suit Remains Pending
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Defends "Cohen" Extended Viewing Fee Suit
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Facebook Members Privacy Suit Pending in Calif.

BLOCKBUSTER INC: Extended Viewing Fee Lawsuit Pending Dismissal
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Hazell Contract Breach Suit Pending in Canada
BLOCKBUSTER INC: "Hedley" Contract Breach Suit Pending in Canada
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Defends Lampone's Suit Over "No Late Fees"
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Defends Amended Complaint Over VPPA Violations

CALIFORNIA: Lawsuit Challenges Budget Cuts for In-Home Healthcare
CBEYOND INC: Hearing on $2.3 Mil. Settlement Set for Jan. 5
CHINA ORGANIC: "Provo" Suit Over False Statements Pending in NY
EMBARQ CORP: Notice of Proposed Shareholder Class Action Suit
EMCORE CORP: "Prissert" Shareholder Suit Pending in New Mexico

EMCORE CORP: Faces "Mueller" Stockholder Lawsuit in New Mexico
HURON CONSULTING: Defends Ill. Shareholder Suits for Restatement
IKB DEUTCHE: SIV & Rating Agencies Sued by King Cty. in S.D.N.Y.
IMERGENT INC: Settles Consumer Class Action Claims in Tenn.
JAKKS PACIFIC: Settlement of WWE Suit Pending Approval in SDNY

KNOW PAIN: Patients Band Together After Clinic Closes
LAND O'LAKES: Denies Claims in Consolidated Amended Suits in Pa.
MASTERCARD INC: Makes Final Payment Under Antitrust Settlement
MICROSOFT CORP: Microsoft Opposes XP User Class Certification
NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Wolf Haldenstein Eyeing Another Lawsuit

PHILIPPINE DAM ADMINISTRATORS: Flood Victims Eye Class Action
REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Medina" Action Over Proellex Drug
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Dismissal of Tremont Securities Suit
U.S. SUGAR: Settles Shareholder Litigation for $8.4 Million
UNITED COMPONENTS: Suit on Filters Sale in Ontario Still Pending

UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Defends Suit Over Filters Sale in Calif.
UNITED COMPONENTS: Bids to Junk Purchasers' Suits Remain Pending
UNITED COMPONENTS: Lawsuits Over Filters Sale Pending in Quebec
ZIPREALTY INC: Lawyers Admits Stealing $2 Mil. of Settlement Fund

* Keating Muething & Klekamp Elects Jeff Sefton as Partner

                            *********

AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Lawsuit Says Xerox's Buyout Offer Inadequate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Affiliated Computer Services
shareholders say the $6.4 billion buyout offer from Xerox
subsidiary Boulder Acquisition Corp. -- $18.60 plus 4.935 Xerox
shares for each ACS share -- is insufficient, in Delaware
Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Sheet Metal Workers Local 28 v.
Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 4933 (Del.
Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/02/SCAACS.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Saxena White, P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431

               - and -  

          Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017

               - and -  

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A.
          Citizens Bank Center
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: 302-646-4433


ALTERNATIVE DEBT: Suit Calls Timeshare & Vacation Exchange a Scam
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that a
class action claims Alternative Debt Portfolios took monthly
payments for time shares and vacation exchange clubs but knew the
contracts were "bogus" because the customers were not enrolled in
any such programs.

Lead plaintiff Susan Morgan says she tried to get a time share
and was told she was not enrolled in any such program. Morgan
says she had paid monthly fees to Alternative Debt Portfolios for
more than two years and she believed she had accumulated enough
points for a vacation.

In her complaint in Jefferson County Court, Ms. Morgan says the
membership "scam" prompted the Indiana Attorney General to sue on
behalf of Indiana consumers.  Vacation Resorts Management, which
sold the contract to Ms. Morgan and then assigned the contracts
to ADP, was sued for misrepresenting terms of the contracts, and
ADP knew the contracts were bogus, according to the complaint.

Ms. Morgan says she was forced to close her bank account to stop
the illegal deductions, and ADP still refused to refund her
money.  She demands class damages for breach of contract,
negligence and fraudulent suppression and concealment.  

A copy of the Complaint in Morgan v. Alternative Debt Portpolios,
L.P., Case No. CV-2009-903128.00 (Ala. Cir. Ct., Jefferson Cty.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/02/TimeShares.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Brent Irby, Esq.
          McCallum Hoaglund Cook & Irby, LLP
          905 Montgomery Highway, Suite 201
          Vestavia Hills, AL 35216-2803
          Telephone: (205) 824-7767


ALTRIA: JPMDL Transfers Eight Light Cigarette Cases to Maine
------------------------------------------------------------
Whit Richardson at Mainebiz.com reports that a federal judicial
panel has chosen a Bangor court to hear a consolidated lawsuit
that accuses cigarette maker Altria of using deceptive marketing
practices when selling its "light" cigarettes.

Eight lawsuits from across the country that claim Altria, the
parent company of Philip Morris, engaged in deceptive marketing
of their light cigarettes will be consolidated at the U.S.
District Court in Bangor and be heard by Chief Judge John
Woodcock Jr., according to a transfer order from the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.  The judicial panel
chose Bangor because the earliest filed of the eight -- Stephanie
Good v. Altria Group Inc., which was filed in August 2005 -- is
already pending at the court and is substantially more advanced
than the other cases, the order says.  In addition, the panel
noted that Chief Judge Woodcock "has the time and experience to
steer this litigation on a prudent course."

Consolidating the cases will eliminate duplication and conserve
the resources of the courts and parties involved, the order says.


AMAZON.COM: Settles Orwellian Kindle Book Deletion Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
In a settlement pact filed in Gawronski, et al. v. Amazon.com,
Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-1084 (W.D. Wash.), Amazon agreed to
pay $150,000 and agreed to injunctive relief guaranteeing that it
will never again improperly delete purchased books, magazines, or
newspapers from consumers' Kindles.

In July, a high school student filed a lawsuit against Amazon
after the company remotely deleted a copy of George Orwell's
"1984" he purchased from Amazon's Kindle Store.  

The student, Justin Gawronski of the Detroit area, had purchased
the book for a summer homework assignment. When Amazon deleted
his book, it also deleted his notes.

According to the terms of the settlement filed last week, Amazon
agreed that it will not impermissibly "remotely delete or modify"
any books, magazines, or newspapers from U.S. users' Kindles.  
Amazon also has provided consumers the option of replacing the
deleted books and notes to all users who had Orwell books deleted
or giving them $30 in cash or gift cards.  

Because Amazon followed through on its promise to resolve the
matter quickly, the plaintiffs' law firm, KamberEdelson, LLC, has
agreed to donate all of its attorney's fees to charity.  Mr.
Gawronski also agreed not to accept any money as part of the
settlement.

"This agreement should give confidence not only to Kindle users,
but to purchasers of all digital media, that their purchased
content is their property, not the property of the company that
sold it," explained Jay Edelson, Esq., the lead attorney for the
lawsuit.  Michael Aschenbrener, Esq., who litigated the case
along with Mr. Edelson and Steven Teppler, Esq., concurred:
"Through this agreement, we've established that buyers of
electronic books have the same rights to those books as buyers of
traditional print books."


ARGENTINA: S.D.N.Y. Rejects Banco de la Nacion Alter Ego Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenblatt at Bloomberg News reports that the Republic of
Argentina won a ruling blocking NML Capital Ltd. and EM Ltd. from
seizing assets held by Banco de la Nacion Argentina based on
claims the bank is the country's alter ego in EM Ltd. and NML
Capital v. Argentina, Case No. 08-cv-7974 (S.D.N.Y.).

NML, based in the Cayman Islands, has judgments against the
republic of Argentina for hundreds of millions of dollars
because the country defaulted on bonds, Mr. Rosenblatt explains.  
In an order entered last week, the Honorable Thomas Griesa
blocked NML and EM Ltd. from pursuing the bank's assets based on
the alter ego argument.  Evidence the companies presented "is not
sufficient to justify holding that BNA was or is the alter ego of
the Republic," Judge Griesa wrote.  In the same decision the
judge ruled NML Capital and EM Ltd. may pursue $3.2 million in
one account at BNA's New York branch to partially satisfy a
previous judgment.

Mr. Rosenblatt recalls that Argentina defaulted on $95 billion of
debt in late 2001.  In 2005, then-President Nestor Kirchner
offered holders of defaulted debt 30 cents on the dollar.  
Holders of about $20 billion in bonds rejected that deal.  
Argentina has since refused to re-open negotiations, preventing
the country from being able to directly tap international credit
markets.

EM Ltd. is represented by:

          Suzanne Michelle Grosso, Esq.
          John B. Missing, Esq.
          David W. Rivkin, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON, LLP
          919 Third Avenue, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212)-909-6000

NML Capital, Ltd., is represented by:

          David Mark Bigge, Esq.
          Robert A. Cohen, Esq.
          Dennis H. Hranitzky, Esq.
          Joshua Isaac Sherman, Esq.
          DECHERT, LLP
          1095 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-6797
          Telephone: (212) 698-3500

               - and -  

          William Brady Mack, III, Esq.
          Kevin Samuel Reed, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES LLP
          51 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212)-849-7154

The Republic of Argentina is represented by:

          Jonathan I. Blackman, Esq.
          Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr., Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON, LLP
          1 Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: 212-225-2000

Banco de la Nacion is represented by:

          Mark Stephen Sullivan, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
          250 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10177
          Telephone: 212-415-9200


ARIZONA HEALTH: Suit Seeks Payment for Incontinence Briefs
----------------------------------------------------------
Cyndi Segroves at the Tucson Disability Examiner reports that
Arizona Center for Disability Law filed a class action lawsuit
against the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, on
behalf of low-income adults with disabilities who struggle to
find the money to pay for medically necessary incontinence
briefs.

AHCCCS is Arizona's Medicaid program which has a regulation and
policy that bars coverage of incontinence briefs to prevent skin
breakdown and infection for adults age twenty-one and over.  The
lawsuit is aimed at overturning the regulation and policy were
adults only receive coverage for incontinence briefs if they have
an existing skin breakdown and infection.  AHCCCS covers
preventative incontinence briefs for children between the ages of
three and twenty-one.

"This policy is cruel and violates the federal Medicaid mandate
to provide coverage of medical supplies and to have reasonable
coverage standards." said Jennifer L Nye, staff attorney at ACDL,
who brought the lawsuit.  "It is unreasonable.  It denies people
medical supplies that their doctors say are medically necessary."
The lawsuit also states that Arizona's policy of covering
preventative incontinence briefs for people living in
institutions, like nursing homes, but not for those living in the
community, illegally discriminates against people with
disabilities by violating the integration mandated of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.  According to ACDL, people
should not have to go to a nursing home to receive Medicaid
covered services.

"Arizona's policy has a negative impact on the disability
community," said Nye.  "Without briefs, people who are
incontinent would be confined to their homes and risk developing
dangerous and debilitating infections.  The failure of AHCCCS to
cover these preventative medical supplies means that people with
disabilities and their guardians must choose between buying
briefs or paying for other necessary living expenses, like food,
housing, clothing, and medical services not covered by AHCCCS,
like dental care.  At costs between $100 to $300 per month,
incontinence briefs can account for up to half of the monthly
income of a person with a disability."

Arizona Center for Disability Law is represented by:

          Jennifer L. Nye, Esq.
          Staff Attorney
          Arizona Center for Disability Law
          5025 E. Washington Street, Suite 202
          Phoenix, AZ  85034          
          Telephone: 520-327-9547


ATRINSIC INC: Defends Suits Over Marketing Practices Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atrinsic, Inc. is defending itself in two class action lawsuits
in Florida and California, according to its Aug. 14, 2009, Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The company is named in the suits involving allegations
concerning the company's marketing practices associated with some
of its services billed and delivered via wireless carriers.

In one of these matters, the company has received a Summary
Judgment on its Motion to Dismiss related to a number of the
allegations made in the original complaint.

During the quarter ended June 30, 2009 a class was certified in
connection with the California matter.  

Atrinsic, Inc. -- http://www.atrinsic.com/-- formerly known as  
New Motion, Inc., is a digital advertising and marketing services
company in the United States.  Atrinsic is organized as a single
segment with two principal offerings: Transactional services and
Subscription services.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Creighton's "No Late Fees" Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., remains a defendant in Beth Creighton's
lawsuit arising out of the company's "no late fees" program,
according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 5, 2009.

On March 4, 2005, Ms. Creighton filed a putative class-action
suit in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon, alleging
that Blockbuster's "no late fees" program violates Oregon's
consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and
misleading business practices.

The suit alleges fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks equitable
and injunctive relief.  Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for District of Oregon.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global  
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-
video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Defends "Cohen" Extended Viewing Fee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., continues to defend the extended viewing fee
putative class-action case, Cohen v. Blockbuster, according to
the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 5,
2009.

The case, filed on Feb. 18, 1999 in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division, was not completely resolved
by a court-approved national class settlement (the "Scott
settlement").

The Scott settlement refers to the Texas trial court order on
April 11, 2001, preliminarily certifying a nationwide class for
settlement purposes and preliminarily approving a settlement
agreement in the case of Scott v. Blockbuster, No. D 162-535
(Jefferson County, Texas).

Marc Cohen, Uwe Stueckrad, Marc Perper and Denita Sanders assert
common law and statutory claims for fraud and deceptive
practices, unjust enrichment and unlawful penalties regarding
Blockbuster's extended viewing fee policies.  Such claims were
brought against Blockbuster, individually and on behalf of all
entities doing business as Blockbuster or Blockbuster Video.

The plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of themselves and other
plaintiff class members including actual damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief.

By order dated April 27, 2004, the Cohen trial court certified
plaintiff classes for U.S. residents who incurred extended
viewing fees and/or purchased unreturned videos between Feb. 18,
1994 and Dec. 31, 2004, and who were not part of the Scott
settlement or who do not have a Blockbuster membership with an
arbitration clause.  In the same order, the trial court
certified a defendant class comprised of all entities that have
done business in the United States as Blockbuster or Blockbuster
Video since Feb. 18, 1994.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the trial court denied Blockbuster's motion to
reconsider the trial court's certification of plaintiff classes.

On Sept. 26, 2007, the Illinois Appellate Court remanded the
trial court's decision to certify plaintiff classes back to the
trial court for reconsideration of Blockbuster's motion to
decertify plaintiff classes. Plaintiffs did not petition the
Illinois Supreme Court for leave to appeal.

On March 14, 2008, upon reconsideration the trial court granted
Blockbuster's motion to decertify plaintiff classes and
decertified both plaintiff and defendant classes.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global  
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-
video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Facebook Members Privacy Suit Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., continues to face a putative class-action
complaint filed under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA),
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, and California's Computer Crime Law in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On Aug. 12, 2008, Sean Lane, Mohannaed Sheikha, Sean Martin, Ali
Sammour, Mohammaed Zidan, Sara Karrow, Colby Henson, Denton
Hunker, Firas Sheikha, Hassen Sheikha, Linda Stewart, Tina Tran,
Matthew Smith, Erica Parnell, John Conway, Austin Muhs, Phillip
Huerta, Alicia Hunker, and Mega Lynn Hancock (a minor, through
her parent Rebecca Holey) filed the class action complaint.

The plaintiffs assert claims against Facebook, Inc., Blockbuster
Inc., Fandango, Inc., Hotwire, Inc., STA Travel, Inc.,
Overstock.com, Inc., Zappos.com, Inc., Gamefly, Inc., and John
Does 1-40, corporations.

They are purporting to act on behalf of every Facebook member
who visited one or more of Facebook's affiliates' websites and
engaged in activities that triggered the Facebook affiliates'
websites to communicate with Facebook regarding the activity
from Nov. 6, 2007 to Dec. 5, 2007.

The plaintiffs claim Blockbuster violated the VPPA, ECPA, and
CFAA by allegedly violating the plaintiffs' privacy through
their activities on the Blockbuster and Facebook websites.

They seek class certification, injunctive and equitable relief,
statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The plaintiffs have stipulated that Blockbuster is not required
to respond to the pending complaint at this time, according to
the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 5,
2009.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global  
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-
video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.

      
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Extended Viewing Fee Lawsuit Pending Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
One additional extended viewing fee putative class-action suit
in the U.S. is inactive and subject to dismissal under the Scott
settlement, according to Blockbuster, Inc.'s Aug. 14, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 5, 2009.

The Scott settlement refers to the Texas trial court order on
April 11, 2001, preliminarily certifying a nationwide class for
settlement purposes and preliminarily approving a
settlement agreement in the case of Scott v. Blockbuster, No. D
162-535 (Jefferson County, Texas).

Blockbuster was a defendant in 12 lawsuits filed by customers in
nine states and the District of Columbia between November 1999
and April 2001.

These putative class-action lawsuits alleged common law and
statutory claims for fraud and deceptive practices and/or
unlawful business practices regarding the company's extended
viewing fee policies for customers who chose to keep rental
product beyond the initial rental term.

Some of the cases also alleged that these policies imposed
unlawful penalties and resulted in unjust enrichment.

In January 2002, the 136th Judicial District Court of Jefferson
County, Texas entered a final judgment approving a national
class settlement (the "Scott settlement").

Under the approved settlement, the company paid $9.25 million in
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees during the first quarter of 2005 and
made certificates available to class members for rentals and
discounts through November 2005.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global  
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-
video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Hazell Contract Breach Suit Pending in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., and Blockbuster Canada, Inc., continue to
face William Robert Hazell's putative class-action lawsuit in  
British Columbia, Canada.

The plaintiff filed a complaint before the Supreme Court of
British Columbia, on Aug. 24, 2001, against Viacom Entertainment
Canada Inc., Viacom Inc., Blockbuster Canada, and Blockbuster.

The case asserts claims of unconscionability, violations of the
trade practices act, breach of contract and high handed conduct.

The relief sought includes actual damages, disgorgement, and
exemplary and punitive damages.

No further updates regarding the lawsuit was reported in the
company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 5,
2009.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global  
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-
video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: "Hedley" Contract Breach Suit Pending in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., and Blockbuster Canada, Inc., continue to
face a putative class-action lawsuit by Douglas R. Hedley,
according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 5, 2009.

Mr. Hedley filed a complaint before the Court of Queen's
Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, in Saskatchewan on July 19,
2002.

The case asserts claims of unconscionability, unjust enrichment,
misrepresentation and deception, and seeks recovery of actual
damages of $3 million, disgorgement, declaratory relief,
punitive and exemplary damages of $1 million and attorneys'
fees.

No further updates regarding the lawsuits were reported in the
company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 5,
2009.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global  
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-
video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Defends Lampone's Suit Over "No Late Fees"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., intends to defend Nicholas Lampone's putative
class action over the company's "no late fees" program, according
to its Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 5, 2009.

On May 20, 2009, Nicholas Lampone filed a putative class action
in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, alleging
Blockbuster's "no late fees" program is a breach of contract and
violates California's consumer protection and unfair competition
statutes prohibiting unfair, unlawful and deceptive business
practices.

Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, injunctive
relief, general damages, special damages, compensatory damages,
punitive damages, equitable relief, attorneys' fees, interest,
and costs.

Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global  
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-
video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Defends Amended Complaint Over VPPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., is defending an amended a putative class
action complaint under the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"),
according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 5, 2009.

On April 9, 2008, Cathryn Elaine Harris filed a putative class
action complaint under VPPA in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas.

On June 3, 2008, plaintiff Harris filed her first amended class
action complaint adding Mario Herrera and Maryam Hosseiny as
additional named plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs are purporting to act on behalf of every individual
who has ever been a member of Facebook and Blockbuster online
during the same time period since Nov. 6, 2007, whose name,
and/or address, or a title, description, or subject matter of any
video tapes or other audio visual materials that were rented,
sold or delivered to each individual were distributed to third
parties by Blockbuster without the informed written consent of
such individuals obtained at the time the disclosure was made.

Plaintiffs claim Blockbuster violated the VPPA when it knowingly
distributed plaintiffs video tape rental and sales records to
Facebook, a third party, without plaintiffs consent at the time
of the disclosure.

Plaintiffs seek class certification, statutory damages, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief.

On Dec. 30, 2008, the trial court granted Blockbuster's amended
motion to transfer venue and transferred the lawsuit to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global  
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-
video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


CALIFORNIA: Lawsuit Challenges Budget Cuts for In-Home Healthcare
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that budget cuts in California's
Assembly Bill X4 would illegally bar thousands of homebound sick,
disabled and elderly people from receiving In-Home Supportive
Services, a class action claims in San Francisco Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in V.L., et al. v. John A. Wagner, et
al., Case No. 09-cv-04668 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/02/Govt.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Melinda Bird, Esq.
          Deborah Dorfman, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
          3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 902
          Los Angeles, CA 90010

               - and -  

          Stephen P. Berzon, Esq.
          Eve H. Cervantez, Esq.
          Stacey M. Leyton, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108


CBEYOND INC: Hearing on $2.3 Mil. Settlement Set for Jan. 5
-----------------------------------------------------------
                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
               FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
                        (ATLANTA DIVISION)

    IN RE CBEYOND, INC.    ) Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-1666 (CC)
    SECURITIES LITIGATION  )
                           ) SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS
                           ) ACTION AND HEARING ON PROPOSED
                           ) SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED THE
    COMMON STOCK OF CBEYOND, INC. DURING THE PERIOD FROM
    NOVEMBER 1, 2007 THROUGH FEBRUARY 21, 2008, INCLUSIVE
    (THE "CLASS PERIOD") AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY
    (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the above-
captioned action has been certified as a class action for
settlement purposes only and that a Settlement for $2.3 million
has been proposed by the Parties.[n1]  A hearing will be held
before the Honorable Clarence Cooper of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in the
Richard B. Russell Federal Building and Courthouse, 75 Spring
Street, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-3361, at 1:30 p.m., on January 5,
2010, to determine whether the proposed Settlement should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate and
whether the Settlement Class should be certified and a class
representative and class counsel should be appointed and to
consider the request of Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses.  The Court may change the
date of the hearing without providing another notice.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR
RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE
NET SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received the full
printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed
Settlement and a Proof of Claim form ("Proof of Claim"), you may
obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator:

          IN RE CBEYOND, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
          CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR
          C/O A.B. DATA, LTD.
          PO BOX 170500
          MILWAUKEE, WI 53217-8042
          Telephone: 800-524-0614
          http://www.abdataclassaction.com/

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status
of a claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:

          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: 800-321-0476
          http://www.labaton.com/

To participate in the proposed Settlement and be eligible to
receive a recovery, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked
no later than January 11, 2010.  To exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion
postmarked no later than December 22, 2009.  If you are a Class
Member and do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you
will be bound by the Final Order and Judgment of the Court. Any
objections to the Settlement must be filed with the Court and
served on counsel for the parties on or before December 22, 2009.
If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit an acceptable
Proof of Claim, you will not share in the Settlement but you
nevertheless will be bound by the Final Order and Judgment of the
Court.

                                     By Order of the Court
__________

     [n1] All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this
summary notice shall have the meaning provided in the Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement.


CHINA ORGANIC: "Provo" Suit Over False Statements Pending in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit filed by Lance C. Provo, "on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated," against China
Organic Agriculture, Inc., past officers and directors of the
company, and one of its current directors, is at an early stage.  

The plaintiff filed the lawsuit on Dec. 12, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the Defendants
disseminated false and misleading statements or concealed
materially adverse facts causing members of the class to
purchase the company's stock at inflated prices, and engaged in
other improper actions, including divesting the company of its
sole productive asset and acquiring a luxury retreat for the use
of the Defendants.

The suit alleges that the Defendants' actions violated Sections
10(b) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10(b)5 under the Exchange Act.

The suit seeks as relief civil penalties, attorney's fees, and
disgorgement.

As to the Company, the complaint alleges violations of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  
Only the Company has been served with process, not any of the
individual defendants, according to the company's Aug. 17, 2009,
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

China Organic Agriculture, Inc., formerly Industrial Electric
Services, Inc. -- http://www.chinaorganicagriculture.com/-- is
engaged in the business of rice production, processing and
distribution.  China Organic Agriculture, Ltd. is the Company's
wholly owned subsidiary.  It operates in three segments: Ankang,
the segment for the trading of agricultural products; ErMaPao,
the one for rice production and processing, and Bellisimo
Vineyard, the segment for wine production.


EMBARQ CORP: Notice of Proposed Shareholder Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2009, prior to their merger, CenturyTel and Embarq
announced the settlement of a shareholder class action which
sought additional disclosures concerning the merger.  The
requested disclosures were made in an 8-K filing with the SEC on
January 16, 2009.  On September 18, 2009, directed that
CenturyLink mail notice of the settlement to all shareholders.  
This is a summary of that notice in Tyner v. Enbarq Corp., et
al., Case No. 08-CV-10121 (Kans. Dist. Ct., Johnson Cty.):

     TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO HELD SHARES OF EMBARQ
         CORPORATION COMMON STOCK at any time from OCTOBER 26,
         2008 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JULY 1, 2009, THE DATE ON
         WHICH THE MERGER BETWEEN EMBARQ CORPORATION AND
         CENTURYTEL, INC. BECAME EFFECTIVE:

     YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a proposed settlement (the
"Settlement") has been reached in the above-captioned class
action (the "Action") whereby in consideration for the
Settlement, dismissal with prejudice of the Action, and mutual
releases between the Settling Parties of all claims against
Defendants arising out of or related to the subject matter of the
Action, Defendants agreed to make certain supplemental
disclosures in a January 16, 2009 Form 8-K filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission. Except as expressly
provided herein, all capitalized terms shall have the same
meanings and/or definitions as set forth in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, dated September 1, 2009 filed in the
Action.

     A hearing will be held before the Honorable Kevin P.
Moriarty in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, Civil
Court Department, 100 North Kansas Avenue, Olathe, Kansas 66061
at 10:00 a.m. on November 20, 2009 to determine: (i) whether a
Settlement Class should be certified for settlement purposes;
(ii) whether the Settlement of the Action on the terms and
conditions provided for in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement
Class and should be approved by the Court; (iii) whether the
Action should be dismissed with prejudice; and (iv) whether the
Court should approve Plaintiff's Counsel agreed-to attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses.

     IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE,
YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED.

     If you have not yet received a printed Notice of Pendency
and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Settlement Hearing
("Mailed Notice"), you may obtain a copy of this document at
www.gardencitygroup.com or by contacting Plaintiff's Counsel.
All other queries may be made to Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Benjamin Rozwood, Esq.
               ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
               600 B Street, Suite 1900
               San Diego, CA 92101
               Telephone: (619) 525-3990

     Any Member of the Settlement Class may request to be
excluded from the Settlement Class, but only with respect to a
claim for damages. Settlement Class Members may not exclude
themselves from the Settlement for the purpose of pursuing any
other kind of claim. A request for exclusion must be mailed to
Plaintiff's Counsel, Benjamin Rozwood, Robbins Umeda LLP, 600 B
Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, California 92101, and Defendant's
Counsel, Mark D. Hinderks, 10975 Benson, Suite 550, 12 Corporate
Woods, Overland Park, Kansas 66210, and postmarked on or before
November 10, 2009 and otherwise comply with the requirements set
forth in the Mailed Notice.

     Settlement Class Members will be bound by the final judgment
of the Court. If you are a Settlement Class Member, you may make
a written objection to the Settlement. If you make a written
objection, you also may appear at the Settlement Hearing, on
November 20, 2009. You must file and serve your written
objection, in the manner specifically set forth in the Mailed
Notice, no later than November 10, 2009.

     PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

     DATED:  September 18, 2009           BY ORDER OF THE COURT
                                          DISTRICT COURT FOR
                                          JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS


EMCORE CORP: "Prissert" Shareholder Suit Pending in New Mexico
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported shareholder class action, Maurice Prissert and
Claude Prissert v. EMCORE Corporation, Adam Gushard, Hong Q. Hou,
Reuben F. Richards, Jr., David Danzilio and Thomas Werthan, Case
No. 1:08cv1190 (D.N.M.) is pending.

On Dec. 23, 2008, Plaintiffs Maurice Prissert and Claude
Prissert filed a purported shareholder class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 allegedly on behalf of a
class of its shareholders against the company and certain of its
present and former directors and officers in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico.

The Complaint alleges that the company and the Individual
Defendants violated certain provisions of the federal securities
laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the company's disclosure
regarding its customer Green and Gold Energy ("GGE") and the
associated backlog of GGE orders with the company's photovoltaic
business segment.

The Complaint in the Action seeks, among other things, an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other costs and
expenses associated with the maintenance of the Action.

Plaintiffs have moved to consolidate the matter with Mueller v.
EMCORE Corporation et al., Case No. 1:09cv 133 (D.N.M.)  The
Court has not yet consolidated the two class actions or selected
the lead plaintiff for these class actions, according to the
company's Aug. 17, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2009.

EMCORE Corporation -- http://www.emcore.com/-- is a provider of
compound semiconductor-based components and subsystems for the
broadband, fiber optic, satellite, and terrestrial solar power
markets.  The company has two reporting segments: Fiber Optics
and Photovoltaics. Fiber Optics segment offers optical
components, subsystems, and systems that enable the transmission
of video, voice, and data over high-capacity fiber optic cables
for high-speed data and telecommunications, cable television
(CATV) and fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) networks. Photovoltaics
segment provides solar products for satellite and terrestrial
applications.


EMCORE CORP: Faces "Mueller" Stockholder Lawsuit in New Mexico
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported stockholder class action, Mueller v. EMCORE
Corporation et al., Case No. 1:09cv 133 (D.N.M.), is pending.

On Feb. 12, 2009, the action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Mexico against the company and certain of
its present and former directors and officers.

The suit is based on the substantially the same facts and
circumstances, containing substantially the same allegations and
seeking substantially the same relief as Maurice Prissert and
Claude Prissert's purported stockholder class action.  

Plaintiffs in both class actions have moved to consolidate the
matters into a single action, and several alleged EMCORE
shareholders have moved to be appointed lead class plaintiff of
the to-be consolidated action.  

The Court has not yet consolidated the two class actions or
selected the lead plaintiff for these class actions, according to
the company's Aug. 17, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2009.

EMCORE Corporation -- http://www.emcore.com/-- is a provider of
compound semiconductor-based components and subsystems for the
broadband, fiber optic, satellite, and terrestrial solar power
markets.  The company has two reporting segments: Fiber Optics
and Photovoltaics. Fiber Optics segment offers optical
components, subsystems, and systems that enable the transmission
of video, voice, and data over high-capacity fiber optic cables
for high-speed data and telecommunications, cable television
(CATV) and fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) networks. Photovoltaics
segment provides solar products for satellite and terrestrial
applications.


HURON CONSULTING: Defends Ill. Shareholder Suits for Restatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huron Consulting Group Inc. defends purported shareholder class
action complaints filed in connection with the company's
restatement in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.

The complaints, filed in August 2009, are:

   -- Jason Hughes v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E.
      Holdren and Gary L. Burge;

   -- Dorothy DeAngelis v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E.
      Holdren, Gary L. Burge, Wayne Lipski and
      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP;   

   -- Noel M. Parsons v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E.
      Holdren, Gary L. Burge, Wayne Lipski and
      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP;

   -- Adam Liebman v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E.
      Holdren, Gary L. Burge and Wayne Lipski;

   -- Gerald Tobin v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E.
      Holdren, Gary L. Burge and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP; and

   -- Gary Austin v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E.
      Holdren, Gary L. Burge and Wayne Lipski.

The complaints assert claims under Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and contend that the company
and the individual defendants issued false and misleading
statements regarding the company's financial results and
compliance with GAAP.

Huron Consulting Group Inc. -- www.huronconsultinggroup.com --
provides operational and financial consulting services.  The
company operates through four business segments: Health and
Education Consulting, Accounting and Financial Consulting, Legal
Consulting and Corporate Consulting.


IKB DEUTCHE: SIV & Rating Agencies Sued by King Cty. in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
King County, Wash. v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, et al., Case  
No. 09-cv-8387 (S.D.N.Y.) (Scheindlin, J.), accuses the German
lender, Moody's Corp., McGraw-Hill Cos., and Standard & Poor's
for issuing false and misleading ratings on the failed structured
investment vehicle known as Rhinebridge.  

King County, Wash., invested in "perhaps the shortest-lived
'Triple A' fund in the history of corporate finance" the
Complaint says.  

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Robert M. Rothman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          58 South Service REoad, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747

               - and -  

          Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          Anne L. Box, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058

               - and -  

          Jason C. Davis, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 415-288-4545


IMERGENT INC: Settles Consumer Class Action Claims in Tenn.
-----------------------------------------------------------
iMergent, Inc., entered into a settlement of a consumer class
action lawsuit filed in Court of Shelby County, Tennessee For The
30th Judicial District at Memphis.  The Settlement stems from a
2008 arbitration action Lyle Hill, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, v. iMergent, et. al., which claimed
the Company through its StoresOnline division engaged in
deceptive sales practices and sold defective software.  The
preliminary approved settlement entered October 1, 2009 is on a
"claims made" basis and requires supporting documentation with
the claim.  The settlement resolves all claims of purchasers who
do not choose to opt out of the class action settlement.
Under the terms of the Settlement purchasers who can establish
they activated their software, spent a minimum of 23 hours
working with the software including working with customer service
but could not develop a Web site may be entitled to a refund of
up to $1,254.00.  All other customers will be entitled to
compensation which includes either the development of a Web
site(s) or discounts on the development of websites.

Jeffrey G. Korn, iMergent Chief Legal Officer, said, "We believe
if the case had continued that both the Arbitrator and the Court
would have determined that iMergent was not liable to purchasers,
and not subject to a class action suit.  We are also convinced
that the Company did not engage in deceptive sales practices, and
have demonstrated time and time again that the software is
vibrant and effective.  Nonetheless this settlement, which has
been funded in part from our E&O policy and in part from reserves
made in previous quarters, is in the best interest of both our
shareholders and our customers.  Protracted litigation would have
proven to be costly and distracted management from continuing to
concentrate on improving sales practice as well as providing
excellent software and customer support.  This settlement allows
purchasers who have claims to seek redress and puts finality on
historical purchases and legacy issues."

Steven G. Mihaylo, iMergent's Chief Executive Officer, said,
"While settling claims we believe are without merit is a
difficult decision, we are pleased that we have been able to find
a resolution to the issue of a consumer class action law suit.  
The fact that we can now put these issues behind us and that we
had previously reserved for this action made the settlement the
right decision.  The changes we have made and are continuing to
make have resulted in substantive improvements to our products
and the experience of our customers. We continue to improve our
StoresOnline product.  Our primary focus is, and will always be,
to improve shareholder value."

iMergent, Inc. (AMEX:IIG) provides eCommerce solutions to
entrepreneurs and businesses enabling them to market and sell
their business products or ideas via the Internet.  The company
sells its proprietary software and training services which help
users build Internet strategies to allow entrepreneurs and
businesses to market and sell their products, accept online
orders, analyze marketing performance and manage pricing and
customers over the Internet.  In addition to software and
training, iMergent offers site development, web hosting and
search engine optimization (SEO).  iMergent, StoresOnline and
Crexendo Business Solutions, Inc. are trademarks of iMergent,
Inc.


JAKKS PACIFIC: Settlement of WWE Suit Pending Approval in SDNY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement of the purported class-action lawsuit, In re JAKKS
Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class Action Litigation, Civil Action
No. 04-8807, is pending approval by the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

In November 2004, several purported class action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The suits are:

   a. "Garcia v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc., et al., Civil Action
      No. 04-8807" (filed on Nov. 5, 2004);

   b. "Jonco Investors, LLC v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc., et al.,
      Civil Action No. 04-9021" (filed on Nov. 16, 2004);

   c. "Kahn v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
      04-8910" (filed on Nov. 10, 2004);

   d. "Quantum Equities L.L.C. v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc., et
      al., Civil Action No. 04-8877" (filed on Nov. 9,
      2004); and

   e. "Irvine v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc., et al., Civil Action
      No. 04-9078" (filed on Nov. 16, 2004).

The class-action complaints alleged that the company and certain
individual defendants issued positive statements concerning
increasing sales of the company's World Wrestling Entertainment
Inc. licensed products which were false and misleading because
the WWE licenses had allegedly been obtained through a pattern
of commercial bribery, its relationship with the WWE was being
negatively impacted by WWE's contentions, and there was an
increased risk that the WWE would either seek modification or
nullification of the licensing agreements with the company.

The plaintiffs also alleged that the company misleadingly failed
to disclose the alleged fact that the WWE licenses were obtained
through an unlawful bribery scheme.

The plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuits were described as
purchasers of the company's common stock from as early as
Oct. 26, 1999, to as late as Oct. 19, 2004.

The class action complaints sought compensatory and other
damages in an undisclosed amount, alleging violations of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder by each of the defendants, and
violations of Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act by the
individual defendants.

On Jan. 25, 2005, the court consolidated the class action suits
under the caption "In re JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class
Action Litigation, Civil Action No. 04-8807."

A request by the defendants to dismiss the case was fully
briefed and arguments occurred on Nov. 30, 2006.  The motion was
granted in January 2008 to the extent that the class action
claims were dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiffs' right
to seek leave to file an amended complaint based on statements
that the WWE licenses were obtained from the WWE as a result of
the long-term relationship with WWE.

The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint.  A briefing
schedule has been established with respect to the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion is
scheduled for argument in October 2008.

The Court adjourned the argument date, according to the company's
Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.  

The parties have notified the Court that an agreement in
principle to resolve this action has been reached.  The
agreement, which is subject to agreement as to documentation and
Court approval, will settle the matter for $3.9 million, without
any admission of liability on the part of the company, or its
officers and directors.

The suit is In re JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class Action
Litigation, Case No. 04-8807 (S.D.N.Y.)

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Eric James Belfi, Esq.
         Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-907-0790
         Fax: 212-883-7579
         E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com

              - and -

         Ken H. Chang, Esq.
         Wolf, Popper, L.L.P.
         845 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-451-9667
         Fax: 212-486-2093
         E-mail: kchang@wolfpopper.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael H. Gruenglas, Esq.
         Skadden, Arps, Slate,Meagher & Flom, LLP
         Four Times Square, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: 212-735-3567
         Fax: 917-777-3567
         E-mail: mgruengl@skadden.com

              - and -

         Jonathan Honig, Esq.
         Feder Kaszovitz Isaacson Weber Skala Bass & Rhine, LLP
         750 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-986-1116
         Fax: 212-888-5968
         E-mail: jhonig@fkiwsb.com


KNOW PAIN: Patients Band Together After Clinic Closes
-----------------------------------------------------
Martin Staunton at The State Journal reports from Summersville,
W. Va., that there are new developments in the story of a Raleigh
County Pain clinic that patients say, closed with no warning.  
The Know Pain Clinic on Harper Road in Beckley closed August 26,
2009, and now, some former patients are pursuing legal action.

The Plaintiffs' attorney:

          William McCourt, Jr., Esq.
          500 Court St.
          Summersville, WV 26651
          Telephone: (304) 872-5651

tells Mr. Staunton that several former patients of the Know Pain
Clinic have come together to bring a class-action lawsuit against
the clinic.  Mr. McCourt says the case would center on
abandonment issues.  Mr. McCourt adds that these patients cases
may not be economically feasible as a stand-alone action, but
collectively, litigation may be possible.  "[T]hat's the benefit
of a class action suit.  It benefits people that would not be
able to pursue cases individually," said Mr. McCourt.

The damages here are two-fold according to one former patient Mr.
Staunton spoke with.  Lisa Bailes says first, it's the manner in
which the clinic closed that created hardships in acquiring the
pain medication and treatments she's been receiving at the clinic
for the last three years.  Secondly, Ms. Bailes says she and
other patients have had trouble getting their medical records
released by the clinic.  "[Y]ou can't get through to anybody.  
You can contact 'em, there's no recording thing or anything.  You
can't get ahold of anybody." Ms. Bailes said.

Mr. McCort told Jessica Farrish at The Register Herald that he's
spoken with around a dozen patients who have been unable to find
new doctors since the clinic closed around the end of August or
beginning of September.

Mr. McCort related to Ms. Farrish that the aggrieved patients are
"generally getting the type of medication that a lot of doctors
have been sued in the past for dispersing.  "Doctors don't just
want to bring you in and give you this type of medicine.  They
want to make sure the people they're giving the medicine to is
who is getting the medicine," he added.  "It's the type that's
resellable," Mr. McCort indicated.

Elizabeth Trenton, a clinic representative, suggested Mr.
Staunton contact the company's lawyer:

          John T. Miesner, Esq.
          1411 Virginia St. E.
          Charleston, WV  25301-3082
          Telephone: (304) 343-2600

Mr. Miesner says the company has no comment about published
reports that the doctor at the clinic is owed weeks of back-pay.

Mr. McCourt says his firm is in the very early stages of bringing
suit and he acknowledges that the courts power is limited when it
comes to former patients finding new doctors.  "I don't think
they have that authority, about the only authority courts have to
order stuff is to order lawyers to represent some people, but
outside of that, they . . . uh . . . no indentured servitude for
doctors on something like that." said Mr. McCourt.

Ms. Bailes says former patients are forced to live with their
chronic pain and a stigma when they try to find new pain
management care.  "We're treated like a drug addict, I mean it's
not just the state, it's everywhere, it's sterotyped, because of
so much drug abuse in the state," Ms. Bailes said.

No formal legal action has been filed at this time.  Mr. McCourt
says more former patients are learning about the lawsuit and are
coming forward.  According to a phone message, the Know Pain
Clinic is in the process of finding a new physician who will need
state regulatory approval.  Mr. Staunton indicates the clinic
plans to re-open this month.


LAND O'LAKES: Denies Claims in Consolidated Amended Suits in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Land O'Lakes, Inc., MoArk, LLC, and Ranch, Inc., deny the
allegations in the consolidated amended class action complaints
pending in the District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Between September 2008 and January 2009, a total of 22 related
class action lawsuits were filed against a number of producers of
eggs and egg products in three different jurisdictions alleging
violations of antitrust laws.

MoArk was named as a defendant in 21 of the cases.  Norco  was
named as a defendant in 13 of the cases.  The Company was named
as a defendant in 7 cases.

The cases have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and two
separate consolidated amended class action complaints have been
filed, which supersede the earlier filed complaints: one on
behalf of those persons who purchased eggs or egg products
directly from defendants, and the second on behalf of "indirect"
purchasers (i.e. persons who purchased eggs or egg products from
defendants' customers).

The consolidated amended complaints allege concerted action by
producers of shell eggs to restrict output and thereby increase
the price of shell eggs and egg products.

The Plaintiffs in these suits seek unspecified damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of all purchasers of eggs and egg
products, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, according to the
company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2009.

Land O'Lakes, Inc. -- http://www.landolakesinc.com/-- is a dairy  
co-op in the U.S.  It provides its members with wholesale
fertilizer and crop protection products, seed, and animal feed.  
Its oldest and best known product, LAND O' LAKES butter, is the
top butter brand in the US.  Land O'Lakes also produces packaged
milk, margarine, sour cream, and cheese.  The co-op's animal-feed
division, Land O'Lakes Purina Feed, is a leading animal and pet
food maker.

MASTERCARD INC: Makes Final Payment Under Antitrust Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard International Incorporated, the principal operating
subsidiary of MasterCard Incorporated, entered into a Prepayment
Agreement on July 1, 2009, to modify its payment obligations
under a settlement agreement, dated as of June 4, 2003, with
plaintiffs in In Re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 96-CV-5238 (E.D.N.Y.) -- a class action lawsuit
challenging certain aspects of the payment card industry under
U.S. federal antitrust law.

On August 26, 2009, the court in the class action lawsuit entered
a final order approving the Prepayment Agreement.

On September 25, 2009, the period to appeal the court order
ended, and no appeals were filed with respect to the Prepayment
Agreement.  

As a result, the Prepayment Agreement became final pursuant to
its terms on September 25, 2009, and, consistent with previous
disclosure and pursuant to the terms of the Prepayment Agreement,
MasterCard made a prepayment of its remaining $400 million in
payment obligations at a discounted amount of $335 million on
September 30, 2009.

The Plaintiffs in the antitrust litigation are represented by
Robert L. Begleiter, Esq., at CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP, and
George W. Sampson, Esq., at HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.


MICROSOFT CORP: Microsoft Opposes XP User Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Keizer Computerworld reports that Microsoft is slamming a
lawsuit that claims it misled millions of Windows XP users about
that company's anti-piracy software, calling the lawsuit
"fictional," "demonstrably false" and from an "alternate
universe."  The company says that it also opposes a move to grant
the case class-action status, court documents reviewed by Mr.
Keizer show.

Johnson, et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 06-cv-00900
(W.D. Wash.) (Jones, J.), accuses the software company of duping
consumers by labeling its Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA)
software a critical security update, and failing to tell them
that WGA collected information from their PCs and frequently
"phoned home" that data to its servers.

Previous reporting about this litigation appeared in the Class
Action Reporter on July 13, 2009.  

In June 2006, Microsoft began pushing WGA to Windows XP users via
Windows Update, the company's default update service, as a "high
priority" update that was automatically downloaded and installed
to most machines. Shortly after that, Microsoft acknowledged that
WGA transmitted information whenever a user logged on to Windows
XP. Under pressure from an intense user backlash, it later
reduced the frequency of the piracy checks.

Microsoft relies on WGA to detect bootlegged copies of Windows;
if the software sniffs out a counterfeit, WGA posts constant
nagging messages on the screen.

In documents filed with a Seattle federal court on Sept. 22,
Microsoft asked that a request for class-action status -- a move
that would open the case to millions of Americans, and open up
Microsoft to significant damages if it loses -- be denied.

"Ignoring the evidence, Plaintiffs tell an outrageously fictional
tale of how Microsoft supposedly 'forced' WGA Validation onto
more than 350 million Windows XP computers," Microsoft said in
the opposition brief submitted to U.S. District Court Judge
Richard Jones. "Without any evidence, Plaintiffs assert that
Microsoft achieved this distribution by threatening to withhold
critical security updates and breaking into computers without
their owners' consent."

Company lawyers also claimed that the plaintiffs had constructed
an "alternate universe" that had no connection to the facts. "The
fictional thesis on which Plaintiffs base their motion is
demonstrably false," Microsoft attorneys argued.

Specifically, Microsoft denied that it had ever withheld patches
from users running counterfeit Windows XP. "Despite Plaintiffs'
assertions to the contrary, Microsoft never withheld any critical
updates or security updates designed to improve the existing
functionality of Windows XP, regardless of whether a user's copy
of Windows XP was genuine," the company countered.

A class-action for the case is unfeasible, Microsoft said,
because it would require inspecting "tens of millions of
individual computers," an impossible task. "Each inspection would
require a skilled computer technician and cost hundreds of
dollars more than the $5 Plaintiffs seek for each proposed class
member," said Microsoft.

If class-action status is granted, Microsoft could face serious
damages, its lawyers acknowledged as they cast the plaintiffs as
gold diggers. "Plaintiffs seek hundreds of millions of dollars on
behalf of tens of millions of persons for twelve forms of alleged
damages," said Microsoft.

This case has had a relatively low profile in the press. Nearly a
year ago, however, Computerworld reported that Jones had granted
Microsoft's request to keep secret sections of the WGA software
development kit (SDK). Making those details public, Microsoft
argued, would give hackers inside information on how to break, or
crack, WGA.

Microsoft's WGA, however, has often made news. In August 2007, a
day-long server outage riled thousands of users who were
mistakenly fingered for running counterfeit copies of Windows.
More recently, Microsoft confirmed that it will not allow users
with pirated Windows to install its free Security Essentials
software.

Judge Jones has scheduled a hearing on the class certification
question for Nov. 20, 2009.  

According to the court docket, the case, which currently involves
nine plaintiffs, including two companies, is set to go to trial
Jan. 25, 2010.

Microsoft is represented by:

          Charles B. Casper, Esq.
          Gregory J. Hauck, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP
          123 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19109-1029
          Tel: (215) 772-1500
          Fax: (215) 772-7620
          E-mail: ccasper@mmwr.com
                  ghauck@mmwr.com

               - and -  

          Karl J. Quackenbush, Esq.
          RIDDELL WILLIAMS P.S.
          1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4500
          Seattle, WA 98154-1192
          Tel: (206) 389-1583
          Fax: (206) 389-1708
          E-mail: kquackenbush@riddellwilliams.com


NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Wolf Haldenstein Eyeing Another Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Kosich at Mineweb.com reports that a New York-based law
firm is investigating possible misconduct related to the
securities of NovaGold Resources.

The pending litigation would become one of several class action
lawsuits which have been filed against the Vancouver-based junior
gold miner stemming from statements it made regarding the costs,
progress and viability of the Galore Creek copper and gold
project.

The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein is investigating whether
American investors who bought NovaGold securities between January
24, 2006, through November 25, 2007, may have been mislead by
statements made by NovaGold officers and directors concerning the
costs, progress and viability of its Galore Creek project.
The original Hatch Galore Creek feasibility study estimated the
capital costs for the project to be C$2.2 billion.  Galore Creek
has been projected to produce 423 million pounds of copper,
341,000 gold ounces, and four million ounces of silver annually
during the first five years of an estimated 20-year mine life.
"The results of the feasibility study enabled the company to
successfully fend off a hostile takeover bid by mining giant
Barrick Gold at $16 per share and allowed the company to raise
hundreds of millions of dollars in an April 2007 secondary stock
offering," the law firm said in a news release Thursday.
However, on November 26, 2007, "the company shocked investors
when it announced that it would suspend activities at Galore
Creek based on the results of an updated feasibility study, which
estimated the capital costs for the Galore Creek project to be
C$5 billion-approximately 127% greater than previously
estimated," the lawyers claimed. "Upon this disclosure, the
company's shares decline $10.76 per share or more than 53% to
close on November 26, 2007 at $9.48 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume."

Wolf Haldenstein joins original plaintiff Rudolph T. Texter, who
sued NovaGold in August 2008, in the U.S. District Court in the
Southern District of New York also over the valuation of the
Galore Creek project.

A local government police and firemen pension fund on behalf of
the City of Inkster Policemen and Firemen Retirement System also
filed a class action suit against NovaGold in September 2008
stemming from the statements regarding the NovaGold Galore Creek
project.


PHILIPPINE DAM ADMINISTRATORS: Flood Victims Eye Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leila Salaverria at the Philippine Daily Inquirer reports from
Manila that Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr. is not about to forget the
destruction wrought by Tropical Storm Ondoy, and wants to file a
class action suit against those responsible for the allegedly
"reckless release of water from dams" near Metro Manila, which he
believes contributed to the rapid rise of floodwaters last
weekend.

Sen. Pimentel, who had to vacate his own home in Marikina City,
said he would file a civil case to sue for damages against the
administrators of the dams.  Those whose properties were damaged
in the flood are welcome to join him, he added.

Officials of Bulacan, which hosts the Angat and Ipo dams, have
said that the water releases should not be blamed for the massive
flooding in Metro Manila and Central Luzon.  The amount of rain
that fell on Sept. 26 was unusually high.

But Sen. Pimentel is not satisfied.  He is already talking with
lawyers and is studying facts and collecting evidence in order to
find out which dam managers failed to take necessary precautions
or "recklessly" allowed water to flow out of the dams.  The La
Mesa, Angat and Ipo dams are near Metro Manila.

"Yes, I would like to have a class suit filed and we will ask
people who feel that they have also been damaged to join if they
want to," Sen. Pimentel told reporters at the Kapihan sa Sulo
forum.

The Senator believes that the very sudden rise in floodwaters was
due in part to the water from the dams, and not just the
unusually heavy rainfall.  He said his home in a Marikina
subdivision, which had never been flooded in more than 25 years,
was submerged in water in record time.

Marikina was among the hardest hit by Ondoy.  Almost all of its
villages were submerged in deep floodwaters.  For many hours,
residents were stranded on rooftops, while cars floated like toys
in the roiling waters.  When the water level came down, many
people were found to have drowned, while a thick, brown muck
covered streets and homes.


REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Medina" Action Over Proellex Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit, Josephine Medina, Individually
and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. Repros
Therapeutics, Inc., Joseph Podolski, Paul Lammers, and Louis
Ploth, Jr., is pending.

On Aug. 14, 2009, a lawsuit naming the company, Joseph Podolski,
Paul Lammers, and Louis Ploth, Jr. as defendants was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  

The suit alleges that the defendants made certain misleading
statements related to the Company's Proellex drug.

To date, no proceedings of any kind have occurred in the lawsuit.  

The company has retained counsel to assist it in defending both
these action, according to its Aug. 17, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

Repros Therapeutics Inc. -- http://www.reprosrx.com/-- is a  
development-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the
development of oral small molecule drugs for unmet medical needs.


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Dismissal of Tremont Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stipulation of dismissal in In re Tremont Securities Law, State
Law and Insurance Litigation is subject to court approval,
according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009.

On May 1, 2009, the company and its parent, SS&C Technologies
Holdings, Inc. were served with a class action and verified
derivative complaint filed against SS&C and other defendants in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On June 4, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claims, on which the court has not yet ruled.  

Subsequent to the company's filing of the motion to dismiss, the
plaintiffs offered to dismiss their claims against the company
without prejudice, subject to agreement on the terms and
execution of a stipulation of dismissal and tolling agreement
(extending the statute of limitations on the plaintiffs' claims
for a limited period) and approval of the court.

The plaintiffs' derivative claims against the company alleged
breach of fiduciary duty and professional negligence in our
duties as administrator to two of the Rye group of funds, which
the plaintiffs alleged provided Bernard L. Madoff with infusions
of assets and were operated through defendant Tremont Group
Holdings, Inc. as part of the MassMutual Financial Group.

The plaintiffs' complaint sought class certification,
compensatory damages against all defendants, jointly and
severally, prejudgment interest, punitive damages and costs.

SS&C Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.ssctech.com/-- provides  
software products and software-enabled services to help financial
services providers to automate business processes and manage
their information processing requirements.


U.S. SUGAR: Settles Shareholder Litigation for $8.4 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
The South Florida Business Journal reports that U.S. Sugar Corp.
agreed last week to settle Matura v. White, et al., Case No.
08-cv-80711 (S.D. Fla.) (Marra, J.) -- a class action lawsuit
brought by shareholders and members of its Employee Stock
Ownership Plan for an $8.4 million payment to members of the
settlement class.

An additional payment of $7.5 million, less plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees, will be made if U.S. Sugar closes its pending
land sale with the South Florida Water Management District,
according to a news release.

Upon approval by the court, all actions against all defendants
will be dismissed with prejudice, which means that the court
ruling is final and the claims cannot be refiled.

News about the filing of the lawsuit appeared in the Feb. 4,
2008, edition of the Class Action Reporter.  

This settlement was reached without any party admitting any
liability.

"All of the defendants in this case have denied and continue to
deny any wrongdoing, and indeed, most of the claims have already
been dismissed by the court," said Robert Coker, U.S. Sugar's
senior vice president of public affairs.

In the settlement, U.S. Sugar said it entered into the settlement
solely to avoid the cost, disruption and uncertainty of continued
litigation.

Upon court approval, settlement payments will be shared by the
classes of shareholders and ESOP participants.

Payments will be made directly to shareholders and deposited into
the ESOP accounts of ESOP participants.  Federal laws and
regulations regarding retirement funds will apply to the payments
for ESOP participants.


UNITED COMPONENTS: Suit on Filters Sale in Ontario Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
Laboratories, Inc., still faces a putative class-action suit
related to the sale of aftermarket filters in Ontario, Canada.

Champion, but not United Components, was also named as one of 14
defendants in a class action filed on May 21, 2008, in Ontario,
Canada.

This action alleges civil conspiracy, intentional interference
with economic interests, and conspiracy violations under the
Canadian Competition Act related to the sale of aftermarket
filters.

The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the 14
defendants in the amount of $150 million in general damages and
$15 million in punitive damages.

The plaintiff is also seeking authorization to have the matter
proceed as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been
ruled on, according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement
parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four
primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original
equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up 40.1% of
sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling
products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products.


UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Defends Suit Over Filters Sale in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
Laboratories, Inc., continues to defend a purported class-action
in the Superior Court of California, for the County of Los
Angeles.

On Jan. 12, 2009, Champion, but not United Components, was named
as one of ten defendants in an action filed in the Superior
Court of California, for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of
a purported class of direct and indirect purchasers of
aftermarket filters.

On March 5, 2009, one of the defendants filed a notice of
removal to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, and then subsequently requested that the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfer this case to the
Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings.

No further developments on the case were reported in the
company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2009.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement
parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four
primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original
equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up 40.1% of
sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling
products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products.


UNITED COMPONENTS: Bids to Junk Purchasers' Suits Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss the U.S. direct and indirect purchasers'
amended purported class-action complaints, which name United
Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
Laboratories Inc., as defendant, remain pending.

The class actions allege conspiracy violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1,
related to aftermarket oil, air, fuel and transmission filters.

                   Direct Purchaser Litigation

As of April 21, 2009, the company and Champion have been named
as two of multiple defendants in 23 complaints originally filed
in the District of Connecticut, the District of New Jersey, the
Middle District of Tennessee and the Northern District of
Illinois, related to aftermarket oil, air, fuel and transmission
filters.

Eight of these complaints also named The Carlyle Group as a
defendant, but those plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Carlyle
from each of those actions without prejudice.

Champion, but not United Components, was also named as a
defendant in 13 virtually identical actions originally filed in
the Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois, and the
District of New Jersey.

All of these complaints are styled as putative class actions on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased aftermarket
filters in the U.S. directly from the defendants, or any of
their predecessors, parents, subsidiaries or affiliates, at any
time during the period from Jan. 1, 1999 to the present.

Each case seeks damages, including statutory treble damages, an
injunction against future violations, costs and attorney's fees.

On Nov. 26, 2008, all of the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  This complaint names Champion
as one of multiple defendants, but it does not name United
Components.  The complaint is styled as a putative class action
and alleges conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act.  The direct purchaser plaintiffs seek damages, including
statutory treble damages, an injunction against future
violations, costs and attorney's fees.  On Feb. 2, 2009,
Champion filed its answer to the direct purchasers' Consolidated
Amended Complaint.

                 Indirect Purchaser Litigation

United Components and Champion were also named as two of
multiple defendants in 17 similar complaints originally filed in
the District of Connecticut, the Northern District of
California, the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern
District of New York by plaintiffs who claim to be indirect
purchasers of aftermarket filters.

Two of these complaints also named The Carlyle Group as a
defendant, but the plaintiffs in both of those actions
voluntarily dismissed Carlyle without prejudice.

Champion, but not United Components, was also named in three
similar actions originally filed in the Eastern District of
Tennessee, the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern
District of California.

These complaints allege conspiracy violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and/or violations of state antitrust, consumer
protection and unfair competition law.

They are styled as putative class actions on behalf of all
persons or entities who acquired indirectly aftermarket filters
manufactured and/or distributed by one or more of the
defendants, their agents or entities under their control, at any
time between Jan. 1, 1999 and the present; with the exception of
three complaints, which each allege a class period from Jan. 1,
2002 to the present, and one complaint which alleges a class
period from the "earliest legal permissible date" to the
present.

The complaints seek damages, including statutory treble damages,
an injunction against future violations, disgorgement of
profits, costs and attorney's fees.

On Dec. 1, 2008, all of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs,
except Gasoline and Automotive Service Dealers of America
("GASDA"), filed a Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint.
This complaint names Champion as one of multiple defendants, but
it does not name United Components.  The complaint is styled as
a putative class action and alleges conspiracy violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and violations of state antitrust,
consumer protection and unfair competition law.  The indirect
purchaser plaintiffs seek damages, including statutory treble
damages, penalties and punitive damages where available, an
injunction against future violations, disgorgement of profits,
costs and attorney's fees.  On Feb. 2, 2009, Champion and the
other defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint.  On that same date,
Champion, United Components and the other defendants jointly
filed a motion to dismiss the GASDA complaint.

                            JPML Order

On Aug. 18, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring the U.S. direct and indirect
purchaser aftermarket filters cases to the Northern District of
Illinois for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings
before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.

Pursuant to a stipulated agreement between the parties, all
defendants produced limited initial discovery on Jan. 30, 2009.

The Court has ordered that all further discovery shall be stayed
until after it rules on the motions to dismiss.

On April 13, 2009, GASDA voluntarily dismissed United Components
from its case without prejudice.

Pursuant to a stipulated agreement between the parties, all
defendants produced limited initial discovery on Jan. 30, 2009.  
The Court has ordered that all further discovery shall be stayed
until after it rules on the motions to dismiss, according to the
company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2009.  

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement
parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four
primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original
equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up 40.1% of
sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling
products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products.


UNITED COMPONENTS: Lawsuits Over Filters Sale Pending in Quebec
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
Laboratories, Inc., faces a putative class-action suit related
to the sale of aftermarket filters in Quebec, Canada.

Champion, but not United Components, was also named as one of
five defendants in a class action filed in Quebec, Canada.

This action alleges conspiracy violations under the Canadian
Competition Act and violations of the obligation to act in good
faith (contrary to art. 6 of the Civil Code of Quebec) related
to the sale of aftermarket filters.

The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the five
defendants in the amount of $5.0 million in compensatory damages
and $1.0 million in punitive damages.

The plaintiff is seeking authorization to have the matter
continue as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been
ruled on, according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement
parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four
primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original
equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up 40.1% of
sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling
products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products.


ZIPREALTY INC: Lawyers Admits Stealing $2 Mil. of Settlement Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Setven M. Ellis at the Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that
a former Los Angeles attorney now based in Irvine, Calif., agreed
to plead guilty to two felonies last week for misappropriating
more than $2 million from his client trust account and losing
almost all of it through day trades in the stock market.

Sandeep Baweja -- whose Baweja Law Group was based in Los Angeles
until he relocated to Irvine in August 2008 -- admitted
committing one count of wire fraud and one count of obstruction
of justice in papers filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Mr. Baweja, 39, self-reported to the court and law enforcement
authorities in December that he had lost nearly all of the money
he had taken from funds awarded to employees of a company he sued
in a class action.

                          Indictment Filed

He was named in a criminal indictment filed Wednesday in the
Central District and faces a statutory maximum penalty of 30
years in federal prison.  However, the U.S. Attorney's Office in
the plea agreement agreed to a downward adjustment of sentence
and not to appeal if Mr. Baweja receives at least 57 months in
prison.

According to court documents, Mr. Baweja filed a federal class
action in the Central District on behalf of current and former
real estate agents of ZipRealty Inc. in May 2007 alleging the
company denied class members certain sales commissions, refused
to reimburse business expenses and made unlawful wage deductions.  
See Class Action Reporter, Sept. 24, 2007.

That fall, ZipRealty agreed to pay $3.55 million in settlement
under an agreement approved by U.S. District Judge S. James
Otero.  The balance -- after paying attorney's fees and costs for
Mr. Baweja and co-counsel -- was to be paid pro rata to
approximately 800 class member claimants.

However, after more than $2.5 million in settlement funds was
deposited into a bank account Mr. Baweja controlled on behalf of
the class, he set up his own online stock brokerage account and
began transferring most of the settlement proceeds by wire.  Mr.
Baweja used the misappropriated funds to day trade securities on
margin, even though he had no experience as a trader in the stock
market, and by December 2008 he had lost virtually all of the
money held in trust.

                         Concealed Activity

During the course of the scheme, Mr. Baweja concealed his
activity from class member claimants entitled to the money,
Otero, an administrator hired to oversee processing claims, his
co-counsel, and ZipRealty and its attorneys.

When ZipRealty notified Judge Otero that claimants had begun to
complain that they were not receiving their portions of the
settlement and sought a case management conference, Mr. Baweja
told the court he was making disbursements and ZipRealty
abandoned its request.

However, Mr. Baweja failed to tell the court that only about
$121,500 had been disbursed to 46 claimants, and that the delay
was due primarily to lack of funds caused by his day trading
activities.

Mr. Baweja referred requests for comment to his attorney:

          Michael J. Proctor, Esq.
          Caldwell Leslie & Proctor
          1000 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-629-9040          

who highlighted the fact that Mr. Baweja self-reported his
actions with full knowledge of the consequences, and that he did
so before authorities became aware of his improper conduct.
Mr. Proctor noted that Mr. Baweja had not walked away from the
scheme with any profits, and that Mr. Baweja had used his own
funds and borrowed others to pay some $575,000 in restitution so
far.

Mr. Baweja was admitted to the State Bar in 1998 after attending
UC Santa Barbara and Syracuse University College of Law, and he
also became a member of the State Bar of Washington the following
year.

                          Sole Proprietor

He initially practiced in Washington, but relocated to Los
Angeles in 2002.  After working for three other firms, he founded
the Baweja Law Group as sole proprietor in 2005 and practiced
primarily from an office in downtown Los Angeles until his
relocation to Orange County.

Mr. Proctor said his client has submitted his resignation to both
bar organizations, and that he expected the California Supreme
Court to take action on Mr. Baweja's resignation within the
month.

Mr. Baweja is expected to make his first court appearance later
this month.

The case against Mr. Baweja was investigated by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.


* Keating Muething & Klekamp Elects Jeff Sefton as Partner
----------------------------------------------------------
Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL announced that W. Jeffrey Sefton,
Esq., has been elected as a partner of the firm.

Mr. Sefton is a trial lawyer with extensive experience at both
the trial and appellate levels in state and federal courts
throughout the United States.  He has obtained successful
decisions, verdicts, and results for his clients at the trial
level as well as through the appellate process.  He specializes
in highly complex, highly contentious litigation, including
multidistrict litigation, class action litigation, complex
product liability and personal injury litigation, financial and
tax litigation, and antitrust litigation.  Prior to joining KMK,
Sefton served as a Judicial Law Clerk for The Honorable S. Arthur
Spiegel, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
(2003-2005) and for The Honorable Terence P. Kemp, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Ohio (2000-2002).  He was also an
Associate with Sebaly Shillito + Dyer in Dayton, Ohio (2000,
2002-2003).  Among his professional activities, Sefton routinely
teaches in the areas of taxation, fraud, and antitrust, including
teaching antitrust law at the University of Cincinnati College of
Law. Sefton earned his J.D. from Capital University Law School,
summa cum laude (2000), his LL.M. from Capital University Law
School (2003), and his B.A. from The Ohio State University
(1999).

          W. Jeffrey Sefton, Esq.
          Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL
          One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 579-6537
          E-mail: jsefton@kmklaw.com

               About Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL

The law firm of Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL, based in
Cincinnati, was founded in 1954.  KMK has approximately 115
lawyers and a support staff of 150 employees.  For the past 55
years, KMK has contributed to the success of many businesses,
from Fortune 500 corporations to start-up companies.  KMK's
mission is to provide high-quality legal counsel to business
clients by meeting their identified needs and developing
appropriate solutions.


                            *********

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  * * *