CAR_Public/091007.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 7, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 198
  
                            Headlines

AIR FRANCE 447: Plane's Owner, Manufacturers & Designers Sued
ALLIANCE HEALTHCARD: Remanded Physicians' Suit v. Unit Pending
AWB LIMITED: Class Action RICO Lawsuit Dismissed in S.D.N.Y.
CANO PETROLEUM: Bid to Nix Amended Securities Fraud Suit Pending
CCO HOLDINGS: Charter and Charter Holdco Defend "Bodet" Lawsuit

DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Natural Gas Prices Cases Still Pending in Nev.
DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Junked Reconsideration Motion Subject to Appeal
DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Remanded Gas Pricing Suit Ongoing in Tennessee
EPL INTERMEDIATE: "Amezcua" Labor Violations Suit Still Pending
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Finalizing Settlement Agreement in "Santana"

EPL INTERMEDIATE: Defends Managers' Calif. Labor Violations Suit
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Calif. Labor Breach Suit Settlement Pending
EPL INTERMEDIATE: In Settlement Talks with "Penaloza" Plaintiffs
FLORIDA: Class Certified in Pediatric Medicaid Lawsuit
HALCYON MANUFACTURING: Diving Equipment Recalled

LAURA HESS: Claims Top $50 Million in Debt-Relief Scam
LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suit Deal Gets Final OK in June
MASSEY ENERGY: Derivative Suit Filing May Have Violated Rule 11
MICHAEL FOODS: Pursuing Dismissal of Consolidated Amended Suit
NETLIST INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in California

NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Dismissed on June 6
PLAYLOGIC ENTERTAINMENT: Copy Protection Software Suit Pending
SONY COMPUTER: Suit Says PlayStation 3 Software Update is Faulty
VESTIN REALTY: Contract Breach Suit v. VRM II Ongoing in Calif.
VESTIN REALTY: Contract Breach Lawsuit v. VRM I Remains Pending

WELLS FARGO: Removes "Ray" Overdraft Suit to N.D. Calif.
WHITNEY INFORMATION: Bid to Nix "Friedman" Suit Remains Pending
WHITNEY INFORMATION: Canadian Unit Defends Investments Lawsuit
WILLIAM LYON: California Suit Over Tender Offer Remains Stayed
WILLIAM LYON: Shareholder Case Still Ongoing in Delaware Court

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

DIREXION SHARES: Fraud Suit Against Financial Bear 3X Shares Fund

                            *********

AIR FRANCE 447: Plane's Owner, Manufacturers & Designers Sued
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service reports that
inaccurate airspeed readings from defective equipment caused Air
France Flight 447 to crash into the Atlantic on June 1 en route
from Rio de Janeiro to Paris and kill the 228 people on board,
the estates of two passengers claim in Federal Court.

Michael and Anne Harris died in the crash due to the negligence
of the plane's owners Societe Air France, its manufacturers
Airbus SAS and several other companies that designed and built
the plane's defective parts, according to the complaint.

"The subject flight crashed into the Atlantic Ocean . . .
approximately 680 miles northeast of Brazil in the middle of the
ocean," according to the complaint.  "All passengers on board the
subject aircraft were killed."

New Jersey-based Honeywell International also is named as a
defendant, for its production of an allegedly faulty "Air Data
and Inertial Reference Unit" in the plane.

Rockwell Collins, a Cedar Rapids, Iowa, company, is accused of
making a deficient radar system installed in the aircraft.

The French company Thales SA designed faulty pitot tubes,
pressure measuring instruments used to determine the airspeed of
a plane, which led to the accident, the claimants say.

The estates seek damages for emotional suffering, loss of
inheritance and other survivor benefits.

A copy of the 41-page Complaint in Harris, et al. v. Societe Aur
France, et al., Case No. 09-cv-3155 (S.D. Tex.), is available at:

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard Warren Mithoff, Esq.
          Janie L. Jordan, Esq.
          Joseph A. Alexander, Esq.
          MITHOFF LAW FIRM
          500 Dallas Street, Suite 3450
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: 713-654-1122

               - and -  

          Russell Post, Esq.
          BECK, REDDEN & SECREST, LLP
          One Houston Center
          1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500
          Houston, TX 77010-2010
          Telephone: 713-951-3700


ALLIANCE HEALTHCARD: Remanded Physicians' Suit v. Unit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A remanded class-action suit against Alliance Healthcard, Inc.'s
subsidiary, The Capella Group, Inc., on behalf of all similarly-
situated physicians nationwide remains pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Augusta
Division.

The lawsuit is entitled William Andrew Rivell, M.D. and Alan B.
Whitehouse, M.D., individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, v. Private Health Care Systems and The
Capella Group, Inc.; Civil Action File No: CV106-176.

The plaintiffs in this case allege that the contracts entered
into by medical providers with Capella through its relationship
with the Private Health Care Systems network of providers did not
allow for the use of the providers' names to market a discount
medical plan whereby payment for services is made at the point of
service by the consumer, and not by a third
party payor such as an insurance company.

The Plaintiffs are seeking certification of this case as a class
action on behalf of all similarly-situated physicians
nationwide.

The case was originally instituted on Nov. 17, 2006, but was
thereafter dismissed by the District Court.  The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated such dismissal and
remanded the case to the District Court on March 24, 2008.

On Oct. 30, 2008, The Harford Accident and Indemnity Co. assumed
payment of defense costs pursuant to a reservation of rights
letter issued on that date.  The Hartford has since filed a
declaratory judgment action against the Capella Group, Inc.
asking the court to determine the respective rights of the
parties, 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.

Alliance Healthcard, Inc. -- http://www.alliancehealthcard.com/
-- is a provider of discount medical plans with a focus on
creating, marketing, and distributing membership savings
programs.  It offers savings in approximately 16 areas of health
care, including physician visits, hospital stays, chiropractics,
vision, dental, pharmacy, hearing, and patient advocacy, among
others.  In April 2009, Alliance HealthCard, Inc. completed the
acquisition of Access Plans USA, Inc.


AWB LIMITED: Class Action RICO Lawsuit Dismissed in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Business, with The Wall Street Journal, reports
that AWB Limited says an appeal against a U.S. class action
ruling in its favour, brought by persons representing a residents
of the three northern governorates of Iraq, has been dismissed.

AWB has been advised that the U.S. Court of Appeals has dismissed
the appeal by Karim and others in Karim, et al v. AWB Limited, et
al., Case No. 06-cv-15400 (S.D.N.Y.) (Lynch, J.).  

The plaintiffs had appealed the original verdict of the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York, which had
found in favour of AWB, AWB (USA), BNP Paribas and Commodity
Specialists Company.


CANO PETROLEUM: Bid to Nix Amended Securities Fraud Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss an amended purported securities fraud
class-action lawsuit filed against Cano Petroleum, Inc., the
company's outside directors and its underwriters is pending in
New York.

On Oct. 2, 2008, the following lawsuit (08 CV 8462) was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against David W. Wehlmann; Gerald W. Haddock; Randall Boyd;
Donald W. Niemiec; Robert L. Gaudin; William O. Powell, III, and
the underwriters alleging violations of the federal securities
laws.

The plaintiff seeks to certify the suit as a class-action.  The
lawsuit alleges that the prospectus for the June 26, 2008 public
offering of Cano common stock contained statements regarding
Cano's proved reserve amounts and standards that were materially
false and overstated Cano's proved reserves.

Messrs. Wehlmann, Haddock, Boyd, Niemiec, Gaudin and Powell were
outside directors of Cano on June 26, 2008.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages for the class
if the lawsuit is certified as a class action.

On July 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
adds as defendants Cano, Cano's Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board, Jeff Johnson, Cano's former Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, Morris B. "Sam" Smith,
Cano's current Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, Ben Daitch, Cano's Vice President and Principal
Accounting Officer, Michael Ricketts and Cano's Senior Vice
President of Engineering and Operations, Patrick McKinney, and
drops Gerald W. Haddock, a former director of Cano, as a
defendant.

The amended complaint alleges that the prospectus for the
Secondary Offering contained statements regarding Cano's proved
reserve amounts and standards that were materially false and
overstated Cano's proved reserves.

The plaintiff is seeking to certify the lawsuit as a class
action lawsuit and is seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

Cano is cooperating with its Directors and Officers Liability
insurance carrier regarding the defense of the lawsuit.

On July 27, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit,
according to the company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2009.

Cano Petroleum, Inc. -- http://www.canopetro.com/-- is an
independent oil and natural gas company that is primarily
utilizing waterflooding and enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
techniques to increase production and reserves at its existing
properties.  The Company's assets are located onshore United
States in Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma.  Cano's proved oil and
natural gas reserves as of June 30, 2008, were prepared by
Miller and Lents, Ltd., international oil and gas consultants.
As of September 10, 2008, it had 17 wells containing multiple
completions.  On September 10, 2008, the Company had total
acreage of 74,200 gross acres and 70,805 net acres, all of which
was considered developed acres.  Cano sells its crude oil and
natural gas production to several independent purchasers.


CCO HOLDINGS: Charter and Charter Holdco Defend "Bodet" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc. and Charter Communications Holding
Company, LLC, continue to defend a class action by Gerald Paul
Bodet, Jr., according to CCO Holdings, LLC's Aug. 14, 2009, Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

On or about March 16, 2009, Gerald Paul Bodet, Jr. filed, but
did not appropriately serve, a class action against Charter and
Charter Holdco.

The suit is styled "Gerald Paul Bodet, Jr. v. Charter
Communications, Inc. and Charter Communications Holding Company,
LLC."

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated the Sherman
Act and Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act by tying the
provision of premium cable programming to the purchase or rental
of a set top box from the company.

CCO Holdings, LLC -- http://www.charter.com/-- through its
operating subsidiary, Charter Communications Operating, LLC,
operates broadband communications businesses in the United
States, with approximately 5.60 million customers at Dec. 31,
2007.  CCO Holdings Capital Corp. is wholly owned subsidiary of
CCO Holdings, and was established and exist solely as co-issuers
of the public debt issued with their parent companies.  Through
its hybrid fiber and coaxial cable network, the Company offers
traditional cable video programming (analog and digital, which
it refers to as video service), high-speed Internet access, and
telephone service, as well as, broadband services (such as
Charter OnDemand video service (OnDemand), high definition
television service, and digital video recorder (DVR) service).


DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Natural Gas Prices Cases Still Pending in Nev.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Six cases alleging that Dynegy Holdings, Inc. inflated natural
gas prices remain pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, according to the company's Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Sept. 28,
2009.

Of the six, three seek class certification.  

These cases are in the discovery phase.

Five of the cases were transferred through the multi-district
litigation management process from other states, including
Kansas, Wisconsin, Missouri and Illinois.

All of the cases similarly alleged that the Company is engaged
in an illegal scheme to inflate natural gas prices by providing
false information to natural gas index publications.

The complaints rely heavily on prior FERC and CFTC
investigations into and reports concerning index manipulation in
the energy industry.

Dynegy Inc., through its subsidiary, Dynegy Holdings, Inc., is
engaged in the production and selling of electric energy,
capacity and ancillary services from the fleet of 29 operating
power plants in 13 states totaling nearly 20,000 megawatt of
generating capacity.


DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Junked Reconsideration Motion Subject to Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in the District of Nevada's denial of the
motion for reconsideration of a Colorado class-action lawsuit
against Dynegy Holdings, Inc., and other defendants, is subject
to appeal, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Sept. 28, 2009.

The lawsuit claims damages resulting from alleged price
manipulation and false reporting of natural gas prices to various
index publications in the 2000-2002 timeframe.

The lawsuit had been transferred to Nevada through the multi-
district litigation process, thus dismissing the case and all of
the plaintiffs' claims.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and the
Court orders additional briefing on plaintiffs' declaratory
judgment claims.

In February 2008, the U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada
granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in a Colorado
class action, which had been transferred to Nevada through the
multi-district litigation management process, thereby dismissing
the case and all of plaintiffs' claims.  Plaintiffs moved for
reconsideration and the court ordered additional briefing on
plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claims.  

In January 2009, the court dismissed plaintiffs' remaining
declaratory judgment claims.

Dynegy Inc., through its subsidiary, Dynegy Holdings, Inc., is
engaged in the production and selling of electric energy,
capacity and ancillary services from the fleet of 29 operating
power plants in 13 states totaling nearly 20,000 megawatt of
generating capacity.


DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Remanded Gas Pricing Suit Ongoing in Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
A remanded class-action lawsuit filed against Dynegy Holdings,
Inc., and several of its affiliates is ongoing in Tennessee.

The plaintiffs claimed damages resulting from alleged process
manipulation and false reporting of natural gas prices to
various index publications in the 2000-2002 timeframe.

In February 2007, the Tennessee state court previously dismissed
a class action on defendants' motion.  Plaintiffs appealed and
in November 2007, the case was argued to the appellate court.

In October 2008, the appellate court reversed the dismissal and
remanded the case for further proceedings.  In December 2008, the
defendants applied for leave to appeal the appellate court
decision to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Dynegy Inc., through its subsidiary, Dynegy Holdings, Inc., is
engaged in the production and selling of electric energy,
capacity and ancillary services from the fleet of 29 operating
power plants in 13 states totaling nearly 20,000 megawatt of
generating capacity.


EPL INTERMEDIATE: "Amezcua" Labor Violations Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Amezcua's purported class-action lawsuit against EPL
Intermediate, Inc. is pending in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles.

On Oct. 18, 2005, Salvador Amezcua, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a purported class-action
complaint against EPL.

Carlos Olvera replaced Mr. Amezcua as the named class
representative on Aug. 16, 2006.

This action alleges certain violations of California labor laws
and the California Business and Professions Code, based on,
among other things, failure to pay overtime compensation,
failure to provide meal periods, unlawful deductions from
earnings and unfair competition.

Plaintiffs' requested remedies include compensatory and punitive
damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The court denied EPL's motion to compel arbitration, and the
company has appealed that decision.  

The Court of Appeal issued its ruling on April 27, 2009,
affirming the trial court ruling on the arbitration issue.  

This case is in a preliminary phase, 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 1, 2009.

Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a
restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of
Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company-
operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in
California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new
company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants.


EPL INTERMEDIATE: Finalizing Settlement Agreement in "Santana"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a purported class-action suit filed on behalf of
all assistant shift managers against EPL Holdings, Inc. are
finalizing a settlement agreement.

In April 2007, Dora Santana filed a purported class action in
state court in Los Angeles County on behalf of all "Assistant
Shift Managers."

Plaintiff alleges wage and hour violations including working off
the clock, failure to pay overtime, and meal break violations on
behalf of the purported class, currently defined as all
Assistant Managers from April 2003 to present.

Written discovery is completed on the limited issue of class
certification.

The Court has ordered that plaintiffs file their motion for
class certification no later than Aug. 15, 2009.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle this
matter and are in the process of finalizing that agreement.  

The company has accrued the estimated settlement expense of $0.9
million, 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 1, 2009.

Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a
restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of
Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company-
operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in
California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new
company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants.


EPL INTERMEDIATE: Defends Managers' Calif. Labor Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
EPL Intermediate, Inc. continues to defend a purported class-
action lawsuit against the company in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles.

On April 16, 2004, former managers Haroldo Elias, Marco Ramirez
and Javier Rivera filed the purported class action suit against
EPL on behalf of all putative class members composed of former
and current general managers and restaurant managers from April
2000 to present.  The suit alleges certain violations of
California labor laws, including alleged improper classification
of general managers and restaurant managers as exempt employees.

The requested remedies include compensatory damages for unpaid
wages, interest, certain statutory penalties, disgorgement of
alleged profits, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs
as well as certain injunctive relief.

The court has lifted the stay on the class action pursuant to a
recent California Supreme Court decision.  The matter is now
proceeding in Superior Court, and the parties are conducting
limited discovery on the issue of class certification.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is expected to be
filed in April 2009, and briefing completed.

The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was set
for Sept. 18, 2009.  

No further updates on the matter were disclosed in the company's
Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2009.

Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a
restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of
Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company-
operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in
California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new
company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants.


EPL INTERMEDIATE: Calif. Labor Breach Suit Settlement Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a purported class-action suit filed by a former
assistant manager of EPL Intermediate, Inc., against the company
is pending California court approval.

On May 30, 2008, former assistant manager Jeannette Delgado
filed a purported class-action lawsuit on behalf of all hourly
(i.e. non-exempt) employees of EPL in state court in Los Angeles
County alleging violations of certain California labor laws and
the California Business and Professions Code including failure
to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods and rest
periods and unfair business practices.  By statute, the
purported class extends back four years to May 30, 2004.

The plaintiff's requested remedies include compensatory and
punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

This lawsuit was served on the company in early September 2008.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle this
matter and executed a Memorandum of Understanding in June 2009.  
The classwide settlement requires Court approval, and it is
expected that administration of the settlement can be completed
by year end.  The company has accrued the estimated settlement
expense of $1.5 million, 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 1, 2009.  

Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a
restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of
Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company-
operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in
California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new
company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants.


EPL INTERMEDIATE: In Settlement Talks with "Penaloza" Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a purported class action filed on behalf of all
non-exempt employees against EPL Intermediate, Inc., are engaged
in settlement negotiations.  

On May 26, 2009, in Superior Court in Orange County, California,
Martin Penaloza, a former Assistant Manager, filed the action on
behalf of all non-exempt employees.  

The claims, requested remedies, and potential class in this case
overlap those in the Delgado and Santana cases.  

The case is in a preliminary phase, 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 1, 2009.  

Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a
restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of
Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company-
operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in
California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new
company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants.


FLORIDA: Class Certified in Pediatric Medicaid Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
The Jacksonville Observer reports that children's doctors and
dentists have won a critical round in their four-year-old fight
with state officials over Florida's Medicaid program, which they
maintain fails to properly serve at least 1.7 million children.

The Honorable Adalberto Jordan has certified class-action status
and set a Dec. 7 trial in Florida Pediatric, et al. v. Seretary
- AHCA, et al., Case No. 05-cv-23037 (S.D. Fla.), filed in 2005
by the Florida Pediatric Society and Florida Academy of Pediatric
Dentistry, which claim the state has failed to meet federal
requirements that low-income children receive periodic health
screening and routine dental checkups.

The medical groups maintain that 200,000 children eligible for
the state-federal Medicaid program receive no benefits because
Florida officials have failed to employ outreach programs.
Another 1.5 million children enrolled don't receive the kind of
coverage mandated by the federal government, the lawsuit
contends.

"This has been worth waiting for," attorney Stuart Singer said
Friday.  "Florida has failed miserably in meeting regulations
requiring preventative care for Medicaid children," he added.
"But without this ruling, we wouldn't be headed to trial."

AHCA had sought to have the case dismissed and argued that class-
action status should not be granted. Agency spokeswoman Tiffany
Vause told the News Service of Florida that AHCA was still
"determining how it will proceed," following Wednesday's court
ruling.

The Medical Groups are represented by:

          Stuart H. Singer, Esq.
          Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
          401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-356-0011


HALCYON MANUFACTURING: Diving Equipment Recalled
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Halcyon Manufacturing Inc., of High Springs, Fla., announced a
voluntary recall of about 20,300 pieces of Halcyon diving
equipment.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

This recall involves Halcyon diving equipment including the
Halcyon Explorer, Eclipse, CCR35, Evolve and Pioneer Buoyancy
Compensator Devices (BCDs) and Halcyon Surface Marker Buoys
(SMBs), Lift Bags, Diver Alert Markers (DAMs) Surf Shuttle and
Diver Lift Raft Inflatable Devices. "Halcyon" is printed on the
diving equipment.

The over pressure valves (OPVs) in the diving equipment could
fail allowing the buoyancy compensator devices (BCDs) and the
diver lift inflatable devices to leak, posing a drowning hazard
to divers

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The products were sold at diving equipment retailers and
distributors from January 2006 through December 2008 for between
$350 and $450 for the buoyancy compensator devices (BCDs) and
between $50 and $275 for the inflatable devices, and were
manufactured in the United States.  To see this recall on CPSC's
Web site, including pictures of the recalled product, go to
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10002.html

Consumers should immediately stop using recalled diving equipment
and return it to an authorized Halcyon distributor or dealer for
a free inspection and, if necessary, free replacement of the
overpressure valve spring.  For more information, contact Halcyon
at (800) 425-2966 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., prevailing
Eastern time, Monday through Friday, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.halcyon.net/opv-recall/or email the firm at  
techservices@halcyon.net


LAURA HESS: Claims Top $50 Million in Debt-Relief Scam
------------------------------------------------------
Law.com reports that Jordana Mishory at the Daily Business Review
reports that the Court approved nearly $54.7 million in claims in
Office of Attorney General v. Laur L. Hess, Esq., Laura Hess &
Associates, P.A., Hess Kennedy Chartered LLDC, and The Consumer
Law Center, LLC., Case No. 08-007686 08 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th J.
Dist., Broward Cty.), last week by people who were bilked out of
their money by disbarred attorney Laura Hess in a debt settlement
scam.  The claims were by almost 20,000 consumers who turned to
Hess and a series of companies she oversaw for help managing
credit card and other debts. Hess, who has been disbarred for
five years, promised to cancel debts for pennies on the dollar
but instead was accused of pocketing the money.

The DBR's full report is available at http://is.gd/3YBpP


LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suit Deal Gets Final OK in June
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
grants final approval of the settlement of a consolidated
securities class action suit against Leadis Technology, Inc., in
June 2009.

On March 2, 2005, a securities class-action suit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against Leadis Technology, Inc., certain of its officers and its
directors.

The complaint alleges the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 by making allegedly false and
misleading statements in the company's registration statement
and prospectus filed on June 16, 2004 for Leadis' initial public
offering.

A similar additional action was filed on March 11, 2005.

On April 20, 2005, the court consolidated the two actions.

In the fourth quarter of 2008, the parties to this litigation
reached a tentative settlement of all claims.  The District
Court preliminarily approved the settlement in February 2009.

The District Court issued its final approval of the settlement in
June 2009, according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Leadis Technology, Inc. -- http://www.leadis.com/-- designs,
develops and markets analog and mixed-signal semiconductor
products that enable and enhance the features and capabilities
of portable and other consumer electronic products.  The
company's product offerings include light-emitting diode (LED),
drivers, power management, touch technology and consumer audio
analog integrated circuits (ICs).


MASSEY ENERGY: Derivative Suit Filing May Have Violated Rule 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law.com reports that Alison Frankel at The American Lawyer
reports that a West Virginia federal judge's dismissal of a
shareholders derivative suit against the board of Massey Energy
was bad news for plaintiffs firm Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check, but worse may be yet to come.  The judge is set to decide
a Rule 11 motion for sanctions filed by defense counsel,
including Cravath, Swaine & Moore, who claim that Barroway's
federal court complaint essentially copied a state court
complaint that preceded the federal suit by a couple of weeks and
added "trivial" new allegations.

Ms. Frankel's full report is available at http://is.gd/3YGdJ

The derivative action is Mercier v. Blankenship, et al., Case No.
07-cv-00555 (S.D. W.Va.) (Faber, J.).

A copy of the Defendants' 20-page Memorandum of Law in Support of
Joint Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is available at:

     http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/merciersanctions.pdf

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robald S. Rolfe, Esq.
          Julie A. North, Esq.
          CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
          Worldwide Plaza
          825 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: 212-474-1000

               - and -  

          A.L. Emch, Esq.
          Jonathan L. Anderson, Esq.
          JACKSON KELLY PLLC
          1600 Laidley Tower
          Post Office Box 553
          Charleston, WV 25322
          Telephone: 304-340-1000

               - and -  

          Tomas V. Flaherty, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Wakefield, Esq.
          Tammy R. Harvey, Esq.
          Elizabeth L. Taylor, Esq.
          FLAHERTY, SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, PLLC
          200 Capitol Street
          P.O. Box 3843
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: 304-345-0200

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee D. Rudy, Esq.
          Robin Winchester, Esq.
          J. Daniel Albert, Esq.
          Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
          James A. Maro, Esq.
          Michael J. Hynes, Esq.  
          BARROWAY, TOPAZ, KESSLER, MELTZER & CHECK LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087

               - and -  

          Barry M. Hill, Esq.
          ANAPOL, SCHWARTZ, WEISS, COHAN, et al.
          89 12th Street
          Wheeling, WV 26003


MICHAEL FOODS: Pursuing Dismissal of Consolidated Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Foods, Inc. is pursuing the dismissal of a consolidated
amended class-action complaint, according to the company's Aug.
14, 2009, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 4, 2009.

In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class-action lawsuits were
filed in various federal courts against the company and several
other defendants (producers of shell eggs, manufacturers of
processed egg products, and egg industry organizations) alleging
violations of federal and state antitrust laws in connection
with the production and sale of shell eggs and processed-egg
products.

Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide classes of direct and
indirect purchasers and allege that defendants conspired to
reduce the supply of eggs by participating in animal husbandry,
egg-export and other programs of various egg-industry
associations.

In December 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the transfer of all cases to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

Subsequently, the direct-purchaser and indirect-purchaser
plaintiffs each filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint.

On April 30, 2009, the company filed motions to be dismissed
from each CAC, and joined other defendants in motions for
dismissal of both Consolidated Amended Complaints.

Michael Foods, Inc. -- http://www.michaelfoods.com/-- is one of
the leading US producers of shell eggs and value-added egg
products (frozen, liquid, pre-cooked, dried).  It has other
operations, but eggs account for 70% of its sales.  The spuds
come in with its Northern Star subsidiary, which pre-shreds and
mashes potatoes.  The company's Crystal Farms subsidiary
packages and distributes cheese, butter and other dairy
products. Michael's customers include food processors,
foodservice distributors, and retail grocery stores throughout
North America, as well as in the Far East, South America, and
Europe. Investment firm, Thomas H. Lee Partners, owns almost 90%
of the company.


NETLIST INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit captioned
Belodoff v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. SACV07-677 (C.D. Calif.)
(Carter, J.), is ongoing.

Initially, in May 2007, Netlist and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in four purported shareholder
class-action suits, two of which were filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the
other two filed before the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The New York suits are:

     1. Tran v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 07 CV 3754; and

     2. Benjamin v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 07 CV5518.

The California suits are:

     A. Belodoff v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. SACV07-677 DOC
        (MLGx); and

     B. Swofford v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. CV07-04006 PSG
        (FMOx).

These purported class-action suits were filed on behalf of
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the company's
Nov. 30, 2006, Initial Public Offering.

The complaints allege that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued by the company in connection with the IPO
contained untrue statements of material fact or omissions of
material fact in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
Securities Act of 1933.  They seek unspecified monetary damages
and other relief.

The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action, under
th caption, Belodoff v. Netlist, Inc., Lead Case No. SACV07-677
DOC (MLGx), which is pending with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on Nov. 5,
2007, generally asserting the same claims.  The defendants filed
their motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Jan. 9,
2008.

The motions to dismiss were taken under submission on April 28,
2008, and on May 30, 2008, the court granted the defendants'
motions.

However, the plaintiffs were granted the right to amend their
complaint and subsequently filed their First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint on July 15, 2008.

Generally, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement issued by the Company in connection with the IPO
contained untrue statements of material fact or omissions of
material fact in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of Securities
Act of 1933.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
Jan. 9, 2009, and on April 17, 2009, the Court granted
defendants' motions to dismiss.  However, plaintiffs were again
granted the right to amend their complaint.  Plaintiffs' second
amended complaint is due on or before May 21, 2009.  

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint
on June 22, 2009, and oral arguments on the motions to dismiss
were scheduled for Aug. 31, 2009.

No further updates on the case were disclosed in the company's
Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 4, 2009.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@csgrr.com

               - and -

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
          Curtis V. Trinko Law Office
          16 West 46th Street 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-490-9550
          E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Sean T. Prosser, Esq.
          Morrison and Foerster LLP
          12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130-2040
          Phone: 858-720-5100
          E-mail: sprosser@mofo.com

               - and -

          Keith E. Eggleton, Esq.
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          650 Page Mill Rd
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300
          Fax: 650-565-5100
          E-mail: keggleton@wsgr.com


NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Dismissed on June 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
The putative securities class-action lawsuit, In re Northwest
Biotherapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C-07-1254-RAJ,
was dismissed with prejudice on June 16, 2009.

On Aug. 13, 2007, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington naming the company,
the Chairperson of its Board of Directors, Linda F. Powers, and
its Chief Executive Officer, Alton L. Boynton, as defendants in
a class-action case for violation of federal securities laws.

After this complaint was filed, five additional complaints were
filed in other jurisdictions alleging similar claims.

The complaints were filed on behalf of purchasers of the
company's Common Stock between July 9, 2007 and July 18, 2007
and allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, costs and
expenses.

On Dec. 18, 2007, a consolidated complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington
consolidating the stockholder actions previously filed.

The putative securities class-action lawsuit was settled with
prejudice Jan. 8, 2009.  The company has agreed to pay in
settlement US$1 million.  In accordance with the stipulation the
insurance company has directly deposited the $1,000,000 in a
court controlled escrow account.  The settlement must be
approved by the Court.

Additional details about the settlement can be found in the
formal settlement documents, which are available from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The case alleged that the company misrepresented certain facts
that resulted in the artificial inflation of the price of
Northwest Biotherapeutics publicly-traded common stock between
April 17, 2007 and July 18, 2007.

The company disputes the allegations of the lawsuit, and denies
that there was any such misrepresentation or that the shares of
Northwest Biotherapeutics common stock were artificially
inflated.  Nevertheless, the company is settling the lawsuit to
avoid potentially expensive and protracted litigation.  The
company settled the lawsuit with prejudice on Jan. 8, 2009.

The Class Action Lawsuit final settlement was approved by the
Court, 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.  

Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.nwbio.com/-- is a
development-stage biotechnology company focused on discovering,
developing, and commercializing immunotherapy products that
generate and enhance immune system responses to effectively
treat cancer.


PLAYLOGIC ENTERTAINMENT: Copy Protection Software Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Playlogic Entertainment, Inc., continues to face a purported
class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit against Playlogic, filed on June 26, 2007, is in
connection with alleged damages as a result of copy protection
software included in Age of Pirates - Caribbean Tales.

The company says that it does not foresee any liability in this
matter, as plaintiffs have clearly sued the wrong company and
the wrong entity.  Playlogic acts only as a publisher of the
game and therefore is not liable for possible faults in
production or distribution.

Moreover, as far as any claim could be brought against Playlogic,
it would be the Dutch subsidiary Playlogic International NV, with
its statutory seat in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, that would have
to be sued.

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, as a consequence, the pending case should fail on
both grounds and any new action against the Dutch subsidiary
would have to be brought before the Dutch courts that are even
more likely than the US courts to reject class actions like this.

The suit is Gindling v. Playlogic Entertainment, Inc., Case No.
07-cv-05610 (S.D.N.Y.) (Rakoff, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Oren Giskan, Esq.
          Giskan, Solotaroff & Anderson, LLP
          11 Broadway, Suite 2150
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-847-8315
          Fax: 212-473-8096
          E-mail: ogiskan@gslawny.com

               - and -

          Scott Adam Kamber, Esq.
          Kamber & Associates, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-920-3072
          Fax: 212-202-6364
          E-mail: skamber@kolaw.com


SONY COMPUTER: Suit Says PlayStation 3 Software Update is Faulty
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that thousands of
Sony PlayStation 3 owners say they downloaded a mandatory
software update that irreparably damaged their machines, causing
the consoles to freeze and the controllers to stop working. In a
federal class action against Sony Computer Entertainment America,
disgruntled gamers say their PS3s crashed after they installed
Firmware 3.0, which Sony claimed would add "a number of great new
features" and "changes that improve navigation on your PS3."

Sony allegedly released another software update several months
later that not only failed to cure the problem, but also caused
users' Blu-ray drives to malfunction.

Lead plaintiff John Kennedy says Sony told him it would cost an
extra $150 to repair his damaged console after he downloaded the
software updates.

Class members demand declaratory relief, compensation and
restitution for breach of implied warranty, negligence and unjust
enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Kennedy v. Sony Computer Entertainment
America Inc., Case No. 09-cv-4701 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/05/Sony%20Computer.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          KAMBEREDELSON, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-920-3072

               - and -  

          Oren S. Giskan, Esq.
          GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON & STEWART LLP
          11 Broadway, Suite 2150
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-847-8315

               - and -  

          David C. Parisi, Esq.      
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVERS LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: 818-990-1299


VESTIN REALTY: Contract Breach Suit v. VRM II Ongoing in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A breach of contract class-action lawsuit is still pending
against Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc. (VRM II) and Vestin
Mortgage, Inc.

VRM II and Vestin Mortgage are defendants in a breach of
contract class action filed in San Diego Superior Court by
certain plaintiffs who allege, among other things, that they
were wrongfully denied appraisal rights in connection with the
merger of Vestin Fund II, LLC, into VRM II.

The court certified a class of all former Fund II unit holders
who voted against the merger of Fund II into VRM II, and a
subclass of all class members who were over the age of 60 and
Nevada residents at the time of the merger.

The trial was scheduled to begin on Sept. 25, 2009.  

The terms of VRM II's management agreement and Fund II's
Operating Agreement contain indemnity provisions whereby, Vestin
Mortgage and Michael V. Shustek may be eligible for
indemnification by VRM II with respect to the action.

Vestin Fund III, LLC, did not provide further updates on the case
in its Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Vestin Group, Inc. -- http://www.vestingroup.com/-- is investing  
in commercial real estate.  Through subsidiaries, the firm
originates, invests in, and services mortgages secured by
commercial properties such as apartment complexes, office
buildings, shopping centers, and assisted living facilities.  Its
Vestin Mortgage subsidiary manages two real estate investment
trusts and a real estate investment fund that focus on mortgages
and deeds of trust.


VESTIN REALTY: Contract Breach Lawsuit v. VRM I Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A contract breach class-action lawsuit against Vestin Realty
Mortgage I, Inc., and Vestin Mortgage, Inc. remains pending.

VRM I and Vestin Mortgage are defendants in a breach of contract
class action filed in San Diego Superior Court by certain
plaintiffs who allege, among other things, that they were
wrongfully denied appraisal rights in connection with the merger
of Vestin Fund I, LLC, into VRM I.

The court certified a class of all former Fund I unit holders
who voted against the merger of Fund I into Vestin Realty
Mortgage I, Inc.

Trial was set to begin on Sept. 25, 2009.  

The terms of VRM I's management agreement and Fund I's Operating
Agreement contain indemnity provisions whereby Vestin Mortgage
and Michael V. Shustek may be eligible for indemnification by
VRM I with respect to the action.

No further updates on the lawsuit were disclosed in Vestin Fund
III, LLC's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2009.

Vestin Group, Inc. -- http://www.vestingroup.com/-- is investing  
in commercial real estate.  Through subsidiaries, the firm
originates, invests in, and services mortgages secured by
commercial properties such as apartment complexes, office
buildings, shopping centers, and assisted living facilities.  Its
Vestin Mortgage subsidiary manages two real estate investment
trusts and a real estate investment fund that focus on mortgages
and deeds of trust.


WELLS FARGO: Removes "Ray" Overdraft Suit to N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., removed Ray. v.
Wells Fargo, Case No. CGC-09-491649 (Calif. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., filed Aug. 20, 2009), which challenges how the
bank levies overdraft fees on customer checking accounts, to
federal court, Case No. 09-cv-04700 (N.D. Calif.), on Oct. 5,
2009.  

Wells Fargo is represented by:

          Sonya D. Winner, Esq.
          David M. Jolley, Esq.
          Steven D. Sassaman, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          One Front Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-591-6000

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212-447-7070

               - and -  

          Howard Rubinstein, Esq.
          914 Waters Ave., Suite 20
          Aspen, CO 81611
          Telephone: 832-715-2788

               - and -  
          Harold M. Hewell, Esq.
          HEWELL LAW FIRM
          105 West "F" Street, Suite 213
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-235-6854

               - and -  

          Jeff S. Kravitz, Esq.
          KRAVITZ LAW OFFICE
          2310 J. Street, Suite A
          Sacramento, CA 95816
          Telephone: (916) 553-4072


WHITNEY INFORMATION: Bid to Nix "Friedman" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Information Network, Inc. awaits a ruling by the U.S.
District Court in the Middle District of Florida as to the
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint filed by Arnold Friedman individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated.

By an order dated Nov. 17, 2008, the Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice the initial
complaint styled, "Durham v. Whitney Information Network, Inc.
et al.," filed by the plaintiffs on Dec. 28, 2006.

On Dec. 8, 2008, the company was served a consolidated amended
class action complaint filed by Arnold Friedman individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated alleging violations
of the federal securities laws.

Mr. Friedman seeks damages, injunctive relief, attorney costs
and fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the Middle
District Court.

On Jan. 30, 2009, the company, along with defendants Whitney,
Simon, Novas, Kane, and Maturo moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint, arguing that plaintiffs have not and cannot
state claims against them as a matter of law and that the claims
against them should be dismissed with prejudice.

This case has not been certified as a class action and discovery
is stayed.

On July 9, 2009, a hearing was held on the company's motion 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.

Whitney Information Network, Inc. provides post-secondary
educational and training courses for students throughout the
United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, interested in
learning about real estate and financial markets.  The company's
courses provide instruction in real estate investing, business
strategies, stock market investment techniques, cash management,
asset protection and other financially oriented subjects.  WIN
also develops and sells educational resource materials, which it
prepares, to support its course offerings and for sale to the
general public.


WHITNEY INFORMATION: Canadian Unit Defends Investments Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Information Network, Inc. and wholly owned subsidiary,
Whitney Canada, Inc., continue to face a class-action suit on
behalf of all persons who have made various real estate
investments in Quebec, Canada, 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 Jan. 11, 2007, Whitney Canada, Inc. and Whitney Information
Network, Inc. received notice of an Amended Motion for
Authorization to Institute a Class Action in the Province of
Quebec, Canada.

A class-action suit was requested for all persons who have made
various real estate investments, at the alleged inducement, or
through, Marc Jemus, Francois Roy, Robert Primeau and/or their
companies, and/or B2B Trust, and/or Whitney Canada, Inc., and/or
Whitney Information Network, Inc. and/or Jean Lafreniere.

The complaint seeks repayment of $39,235 to the Petitioner,
unspecified payment to each member of the class of an amount
corresponding to their lost investments, payment of $10,000 to
each member of the class as general damages, recovery of costs
and other litigation expenses, and unspecified equitable relief.

Whitney Information Network, Inc. provides post-secondary
educational and training courses for students throughout the
United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, interested in
learning about real estate and financial markets.  The company's
courses provide instruction in real estate investing, business
strategies, stock market investment techniques, cash management,
asset protection and other financially oriented subjects.  WIN
also develops and sells educational resource materials, which it
prepares, to support its course offerings and for sale to the
general public.


WILLIAM LYON: California Suit Over Tender Offer Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit that challenges a tender offer
by one of William Lyon Homes, Inc.'s stockholders remains
stayed.

On March 17, 2006, the company's principal stockholder commenced
a tender offer to purchase all outstanding shares of the
company's common stock not already owned by the principal
holder.  Initially, the price offered in the tender was $93 per
share, but it has since been increased to $109 per share.

On that same day, the complaint, "Alaska Electrical Pension Fund
v. William Lyon Homes, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CC-00047," was
filed before the Superior Court of the state of California,
County of Orange.

The complaint in the California Action names the company and
certain of its directors as defendants and alleges, among other
things, that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
to the public stockholders.

The plaintiff in the California Action also sought to enjoin the
tender offer, and, among other things, to obtain attorneys' fees
and expenses related to the litigation.

On April 20, 2006, the California court denied the request of
the plaintiff in the California Action to enjoin the Tender
Offer.  The plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class in the
California Action, which was later taken off calendar, and the
company filed a motion to stay the California Action.

On July 5, 2006, the California Court granted the company's
motion to stay the California Action.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

William Lyon Homes -- http://www.lyonhomes.com/-- is primarily
engaged in the design, construction and sale of single-family
detached and attached homes in California, Arizona and Nevada.
The company offers a range of homes designed to meet the
specific needs of each of its markets, although it primarily
emphasizes sales to the entry-level and move-up homebuyer
markets.


WILLIAM LYON: Shareholder Case Still Ongoing in Delaware Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The remanded case captioned "In re: William Lyon Homes, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 05-CC-00092" is proceeding in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County.

                        Case Background

On March 17, 2006, the company's principal stockholder commenced
a tender offer to purchase all outstanding shares of the
company's common stock not already owned by the principal
holder.  Initially, the price offered in the tender was $93 per
share, but it has since been increased to $109 per share.

Two purported class-action complaints were filed on behalf of
the public stockholders of the company, challenging the tender
offer and challenging related actions of the company and the
directors of the company.  The suits are:

      1. Stephen L. Brown v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Civil
         Action No. 2015-N, filed on March 20, 2006, and

      2. Michael Crady, et al. v. General William Lyon, et
         al., Civil Action No. 2017-N, filed on March 21, 2006.

Both suits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in and for New Castle County.

The Delaware Complaints name the company and its directors as
defendants.  They allege, among other things, that the
defendants have breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
plaintiffs in connection with the tender offer and other related
corporate activities.

The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the tender offer and, among
other things, to obtain attorneys' fees and expenses related to
the litigation.

On March 23, 2006, the company announced that its board had
appointed a special committee of independent directors who are
not members of the company's management or employed by the
company to consider the tender offer.  The members of the
Special Committee are Harold H. Greene, Lawrence M. Higby, and
Dr. Arthur Laffer.

The company also announced that the Special Committee had
retained Morgan Stanley & Co. as its financial advisor and
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP as its legal counsel.

                  Consolidation and Settlement

On March 24, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the
Delaware Complaints into a single case entitled, "In re: William
Lyon Homes Shareholder Litigation, Civil Action No. 2015-N."

On April 10, 2006, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware
Action executed a Memorandum of Understanding, detailing a
proposed settlement subject to the Delaware Chancery Court's
approval.

Pursuant to the MOU, General Lyon increased his offer of $93 per
share to $100 per share, extended the closing date of the offer
to April 21, 2006, and, on April 11, 2006, filed an amended
Schedule Tender Offer.

The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action have
determined that the settlement is "fair, reasonable, adequate,
and in the best interests of plaintiffs and the putative Class."

The Special Committee also determined that the price of $100 per
share was fair to the shareholders, and recommended that the
company's shareholders accept the revised tender offer and
tender their shares.

Thereafter, General Lyon also decided to further extend the
closing date of the tender offer from April 21, 2006, to April
28, 2006.

                   Certification & Dismissal

On April 23, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court conditionally
certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware Action.  The
parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action agreed to a
stipulation of settlement, and on Aug. 9, 2006, the Delaware
Chancery Court certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware
Action, approved the settlement, and dismissed the Consolidated
Delaware Action with prejudice as to all defendants and the
class.

On Feb. 16, 2007, the fee award to the plaintiffs' counsel was
appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware.

On July 18, 2007, a three-judge panel of the Delaware Supreme
Court heard oral argument, and later referred the matter for
consideration by the Court en Banc.

In December 2007, the Delaware Supreme Court remanded the matter
to the Chancery Court for further proceedings regarding the fee
award to the plaintiff's counsel.  Under the appealed award, the
company has no expected liability for the plaintiffs' counsel
fees, which are expected to be paid by General Lyon.

On Dec. 1, 2008, the Chancery Court heard oral argument and
reserved decision regarding the fee award to Plaintiffs'
counsel, which is expected to be paid by General Lyon, according
to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2009.

William Lyon Homes -- http://www.lyonhomes.com/-- is primarily
engaged in the design, construction and sale of single-family
detached and attached homes in California, Arizona and Nevada.
The company offers a range of homes designed to meet the
specific needs of each of its markets, although it primarily
emphasizes sales to the entry-level and move-up homebuyer
markets.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

DIREXION SHARES: Fraud Suit Against Financial Bear 3X Shares Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Direxion Shares conned
investors into buying shares of Financial Bear 3X Shares Fund at
artificially inflated prices, Milton Pfeiffer claims in a class
action in New York Federal Court.

The case is Pfeiffer v. Dirextion Shares EFT Trust, et al., Case
No. 09-cv-08375 (S.D.N.Y.).  

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc Ian Gross, Esq.  
          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK BLOCK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Fax: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com

                            *********

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  * * *