CAR_Public/091012.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, October 12, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 201
  
                            Headlines

AGRIUM ADVANCED: Accused of Not Paying Overtime
ALTRIA GROUP: Class Action Notice in Minn. Light Cigarette Case
ATLAS MINING: Settlement of Securities Suit Pending in Idaho
CONSTAR INT'L: Consolidated Securities Lawsuit Pending in Pa.
DIRECTV GROUP: Merger-Related Suit Settlement Pending in Del.

EQ INDUSTRIES: Settles Apex Explosion Class Action for $7.85 Mil.
HCA INC: Remanded Understaffing Suit Remains Ongoing in Kansas
IMMUCOR INC: Defends Lawsuits on Price-Fixing of Blood Reagents
IMMUCOR INC: Has Yet to Respond to City of Pontiac's Complaint
IMMUCOR INC: Faces "Schlenker" Securities Suit in Pennsylvania

LSB INDUSTRIES: Unit Defends Suits Over Sale of Defective Coils
MDL 1554: Order Approving $510 Mil. IPO Litigation Deal Avaialble
MOLSON COORS: Accused of Issuing Invalid Prize Codes
MONTREAL PROPERTY TAXES: High Court Rejects Class Action Bid
NASHUA CORP: Discovery in ERISA Suit v. State Street Ongoing

NASHUA CORP: Oct. 19 Hearing Set for Shareholder Suit Settlement
NASHUA CORP: "Russell" Suit Over Cenveo Merger Pending in Mass.
NATIONAL SECURITY: Suits in Hurricanes' Aftermath Remain Pending
OSI RESTAURANT: Continues to Defend "Ervin" Wage & Hour Suit
OSI RESTAURANT: Expecting EEOC to Pursue Discrimination Claims

PARTNERSHIP CONCEPTS: Chicago Landlord Sued for Deposit Interest
RED HAT: Defends Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.C.
S&T CONSTRUCTION: Construction Workers Sue for Overtime Pay
SALSA MARKET: Workers Sue for Overtime Pay in San Diego
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: N.J. Class Action Attacks Plasma Televisions

SIX FLAGS: Mulls $2.5M Payment in Labor Suit Deal Fund in 2010
STATION CASINOS: Faces "Lukevich" Labor Suit in Nev. State Court
US SUGAR: Final Hearing on Shareholder Settlement Set for Jan. 4
WELLS FARGO: Bankr. Ct. Has Jurisdiction for In Personam Relief
WILLIAMS TRANSPORT: Drivers Claim They Weren't Paid Minimum Wage

* Berger & Montague Named on to Nat.L.J.'s 2009 "Hot List"

* Is the Death of the Securities Class Action Greatly Exaggerated?

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Coughlin Stoia Files Fraud Suit in S.D. Tex.

                            *********

AGRIUM ADVANCED: Accused of Not Paying Overtime
-----------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Agrium Advanced Technologies
doesn't pay its workers overtime, an employee claims in a class
action in Alabama Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Grantham v. Agrium Advanced
Technologies (U.S.) Inc. fka Agrium Polymer Coatings Corp., Case
No. 09-cv-1992 (N.D. Ala.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/07/Agrium.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Arendall, Esq.
          Allen D. Arnold, Esq.
          ARENDALL & ASSOCIATES
          2018 Morris Avenue, Third Floor
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205-252-1550


ALTRIA GROUP: Class Action Notice in Minn. Light Cigarette Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
This is a Court-ordered Class Notice in Curtis, et al. v Altria
Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., Court File No.
27-CV-01-18042 (Minn. Dist. Ct., 4th J. Dist., Hennepin Cty.,
filed Nov. 28, 2001).

If you purchased Marlboro Lights cigarettes in Minnesota at any
time before November 30, 2004, this class action notice may
affect your rights.

A class action lawsuit involving the marketing, advertising and
promotion of Marlboro Lights cigarettes is pending in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, entitled Curtis, et al., v Altria Group, Inc.
and Philip Morris USA, Inc., Court File No. 27-CV-01-18042.  This
notice is to inform you of the Court's decision to certify a
Plaintiff Class, the nature of Plaintiffs' claims, and your right
to participate in or exclude yourself from the class.

This notice tells you about the case, about your rights and
responsibilities, and what to do if you decide to participate or
not participate in this case.

ARE YOU AFFECTED BY THIS CASE?

The following are members of the Plaintiff Class: All persons who
purchased Defendants' Marlboro Lights cigarettes in Minnesota for
personal consumption from the first date Defendants sold Marlboro
Lights in Minnesota through the date of the certification of the
Class. (November 29, 2004)

Therefore, regardless of where you live, you are a "Class Member"
if you purchased Marlboro Lights in Minnesota for personal
consumption at any time before November 30, 2004.

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, by way of deceptive
advertising, marketing and promotional activities in Minnesota
during the Class period, misled the smoking public as to the
delivery of tar and nicotine by Marlboro Lights cigarettes. The
Plaintiffs seek to recover money from the Defendants' sales of
cigarettes during the Class period. This case does not involve
claims for personal injuries or wrongful death. Defendants deny
that they made any misrepresentations about Marlboro Lights and
deny that a class action is proper.

Plaintiffs can either win or lose this case. The Court has not
decided the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims or Defendants'
defenses. Plaintiffs will be required to prove their claims at
trial.

The following law firms represent Plaintiffs as Class Counsel:

          Gale D. Pearson, Esq.
          Stephen J. Randall, Esq.
          Kenneth LaBore, Esq.
          Suzanne M. Scheller, Esq.
          PEARSON, RANDALL, SCHUMACHER & LABORE, P.A.
          Fifth Street Towers
          100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1025
          Minneapolis, MN 55402

               - and -  

          Phillip A. Cole, Esq.
          Kay Nord Hunt, Esq.
          Ehrich L. Koch, Esq.
          Valerie R. Sims, Esq.
          LOMMEN, ABDO, COLE, KING & STAGEBERG, P.A.
          Suite 2000, IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402

               - and -  

          Martha K. Wivell, Esq.
          219 River Street, Suite 105
          P.O. Box 339
          Cook, MN 55723

               - and -  

          Stephen A. Sheller, Esq.
          SHELLER, P.C.
          1528 Walnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102

               - and -

          Esther Berezosky, Esq.
          WILLIAMS, CUKER & BEREZOFSKY
          210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002

               - and -

          Mark Cuker, Esq.
          WILLIAMS, CUKER & BEREZOFSKY
          1617 J.F.K. Boulevard, Suite 800
          Philadelphia, PA 19103

If Class Counsel obtains a judgment, they may apply to the Court
for payment of their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. You do
not need to hire your own attorney, but if you choose to do so,
you will be responsible for paying that attorney's fee. You may
seek the Court's permission to intervene or appear in the action
as a named class co-representative.

YOU MAY EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS.

You have a choice whether or not to remain a member of the class.
To remain a member of the class, you need not do anything at this
time. If you remain a class member, you will be bound by all
Orders of the Court and you will be barred from bringing any
future claims based on the allegations raised in this case.
If you do not wish to remain a member of the class, you must
state that you wish to "opt-out" in writing to the address listed
below postmarked by September 4, 2009. If you opt-out (exclude)
yourself, you cannot receive any recovery obtained on behalf of
the Class in the event that Plaintiffs prevail, and you will not
be bound by any Court orders or judgments.

To exclude yourself, you must write to: Light Cigarette
Litigation, Pearson, Randall, Schumacher & LaBore, P.A., 100
South Fifth Street, Suite 1025, Fifth Street Towers, Minneapolis,
MN 55402.  

To get more information, visit the Web site at:

     http://www.MinnesotaLightCigaretteLitigation.com/

                     DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT.



ATLAS MINING: Settlement of Securities Suit Pending in Idaho
------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of a class action styled In Re Atlas
Mining Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-00428, is
pending final approval by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho.

The company, certain of its directors and former officers and
employees, its prior auditor, Chisolm, Bierwolf & Nilson, LLC,
and Nano Clay and Technologies, Inc., its defunct, wholly owned
subsidiary, are defendants in a class action filed on Oct. 11,
2007, on behalf of purchasers of the company publicly traded
common stock during the period Jan. 19, 2005, through Oct. 8,
2007.

The First Amended Complaint -- see http://is.gd/26qUm-- alleges   
that the company damaged purchasers by making material
misstatements in publicly disseminated press releases and
Securities and Exchange Commission filings regarding the extent
of the halloysite deposit on company property, the availability
and quality of halloysite for sale, and claimed sales of
halloysite.

The Complaint also alleges that the company improperly
manipulated reported earnings with respect to purported
halloysite sales and misrepresentations by the individual
defendants as to our financial statements.

The plaintiffs seek remedies under Section 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and for
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The company's former officers and employees have requested, with
respect to this action, payment of their attorneys' fees and
indemnification.

Lead counsel in this case has been selected.

On July 2, 2009, the company entered into a Settlement Agreement  
with the lead plaintiffs.  Under the terms of the settlement
pact, the Company will pay plaintiffs $1,250,000 (which includes
fees to plaintiff's counsel), to be funded by the proceeds of an
insurance policy issued by Navigators Insurance Co., in exchange
for release of all claims against Company, Nano Clay &
Technologies, Inc., and William T. Jacobson, Robert Dumont,
Ronald Price and Barbara Suveg.  The company will also fund up
to $75,000 to fund expenses in connection with notification to
class members.  

The Settlement Agreement is subject to a number of conditions
including successful completion of confirmatory due diligence by
the lead plaintiffs and final court approval, according to the
company's Sept. 30, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2009.

Atlas Mining Company -- http://www.atlasmining.com/-- is a
natural resources company engaged in the acquisition,
exploration and development of its resource properties in the
states of Idaho and Utah.  The company also provides contract
mining services and specialized civil construction services for
mine operators, exploration companies and the construction and
natural resources industries through its trade name Atlas
Fausett Contracting (AFC).  AFC performs site evaluation,
feasibility studies, trouble-shooting and consultation prior to
the undertaking of exploration and mine development.  The
company also operates in timber industry.  The company contracts
its logging to a qualified logger when it is selling the timber.
Its property consists primarily of pine, fir and larch.  The
company's major mining properties include Shoshone County,
Idaho, and Juab County, Utah.


CONSTAR INT'L: Consolidated Securities Lawsuit Pending in Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class-action lawsuit filed against
Constar International, Inc., remains pending.

The company and certain of its present and former directors,
along with Crown Holdings, Inc., as well as various
underwriters, were named defendants in the consolidated putative
securities class action suit, captioned "In re Constar
International Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-
05020."

This action, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, is a consolidation of two complaints:

     -- Parkside Capital LLC v. Constar International Inc., et
        al., Case No. 03-5020, filed on Sept. 5, 2003; and

     -- Frejek v. Constar International Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 03-5166, filed on Sept. 15, 2003.

A consolidated and amended complaint, filed June 17, 2004,
generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
for the company's initial public offering of its common stock on
Nov. 14, 2002 contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants in these lawsuits
violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  They
seek class-action certification and an award of damages and
litigation costs and expenses.

Under the company's charter documents, an agreement with Crown
and an underwriting agreement with Crown and the underwriters,
the company has incurred certain indemnification and
contribution obligations to the other defendants with respect to
this lawsuit.

The court has previously denied the company's motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
as well as the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

On May 7, 2007, the Special Master issued a Report and Order
granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The
company filed objections to the Report and Order.

The Court later overruled the company's objections, adopting the
Special Master's Report and Order, and granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

On March 18, 2008, the company filed a Rule 23(f) Petition in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking leave to
take an immediate appeal from the class certification ruling.

On April 30, 2008, the Third Circuit entered an Order granting
the company's Rule 23(f) Petition.

The parties have briefed the appeal, and oral argument was held
on July 13, 2009.  At the company's request, the Special Master
and the District Court have agreed to stay all further
proceedings before the District Court pending the outcome of the
appeal, with the exception of certain limited discovery.  

In connection with the company's emergence from Chapter 11 and in
accordance with the Plan, all such claims are to be subordinated
pursuant to Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and treated as
equity interests.  The Plan further provides that all pre-
petition equity interests in Constar will be extinguished, as
will any claims relating to, or arising in connection with, such
equity interests (or the purchase or sale of such interests),
including all indemnification and contribution obligations
referred to above.  The company intends to file papers with the
District Court asking to be dismissed from the action based on
the Plan, 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 suit is In re Constar International Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-05020 (E.D. Pa.) (Ludwig, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stephanie M. Beige, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD & LIFSHITZ, LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-779-1414
          E-mail: beige@bernlieb.com

               - and -  

          Andrew J. Brown, Esq.
          MILBERG WEISS BERGHAD HYNES & LERACH, LLP
          401 B. Street, STE. 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          E-mail: andrewb@lcsr.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          E-mail: dcheck@sbclasslaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Steven B. Feirson, Esq.
          Michael L. Kichline, Esq.
          Scott A. Thompson, Esq.
          DECHERT, PRICE & RHOADS
          1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
          Phone: 215-994-2749
          Fax: 215-994-2222
          E-mail: steven.feirson@dechert.com
                  michael.kichline@dechert.com
                  scott.thompson@dechert.com


DIRECTV GROUP: Merger-Related Suit Settlement Pending in Del.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement reached in the multiple purported class action
complaints against The DirectTV Group, Inc., and Liberty Media
Corp. is pending final court approval.

DIRECTV and Liberty have reached an agreement in principle with
the plaintiffs in the multiple purported class action complaints
pending against DIRECTV, Liberty and the DIRECTV board of
directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery that were brought on
behalf of the public stockholders of DIRECTV alleging, among
other things, that the members of the DIRECTV board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger
Agreement.

The Settlement will be memorialized in a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release to be executed by
DIRECTV, Liberty and the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action.

In the event that final court approval of the Stipulation of
Settlement is not obtained by June 30, 2010, the terms of the
Stipulation of Settlement and the related changes to the Holdings
amended and restated certificate of incorporation and by-laws,
with certain limited exceptions, will become null and void,
according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 2,
2009.

The DIRECTV Group, Inc. -- http://www.directv.com/-- provides  
digital television entertainment in the United States and Latin
America.  The company operates in two segments, DIRECTV U.S. and
DIRECTV Latin America (DTVLA), which are engaged in acquiring,
promoting, selling and/or distributing digital entertainment
programming through satellite to residential and commercial
subscribers.


EQ INDUSTRIES: Settles Apex Explosion Class Action for $7.85 Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersAndSettlement.com reports that residents and businesses
located in and around a waste warehouse in Apex, N.C., have
prevailed in Beaulieu v. EQ Industrial Services, Inc., et al,
Case No. 06-cv-00400 (D. N.C.), with a $7.85 million settlement

Three years ago local businesses and residents were forced to
evacuate because of a hazardous waste explosion at the Apex
warehouse.  The settlement will provide $750 per household that
was evacuated, and up to $2,200 to each business that had to
close.

EQ has been fined in the past for failing to report fires and
chemical reactions at the Apex site, and has paid more than
$400,000 in penalties in order to remain open.

As related in the Class Action Reporter on July 27, 2009, the
suit was filed by the law firms Parker & Waichman, LLP, Greg
Jones & Associates, PA, Neblett, Beard Arsenault, Becnel Law
Firm, LLC & Law Offices of Ronnie G. Penton.


HCA INC: Remanded Understaffing Suit Remains Ongoing in Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spires v. Hospital Corp. of America, Case No. 2:06-cv-02137 (D.
Kans.) (Lungstrum, J.), alleges that, to maximize profits, HCA
compromises patient care by deliberately understaffing registered
nurses at its hospitals, and is ongoing 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 class-action complaint was filed on April 10, 2006, against
the company in the U.S. District Court for District of Kansas
alleging, among other matters, nurse understaffing at all of the
company's hospitals, certain consumer protection act violations,
negligence and unjust enrichment.

Mildred Spires, a widow who claims that her husband died on
April 22, 2004, at the company's Wesley Medical Center in
Wichita, filed the suit.  She claims that her husband died
because the hospital did not have enough nurses working to care
for him when he was hospitalized in 2004 (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 11, 2007).

Lawrence Williamson, Esq., Mrs. Spires' attorney, said that the
company set out in about 1996 to become a $50-billion company
and has tried to reach that goal by reducing costs, primarily by
cutting staff.  The company reported revenues of $24.5 billion
in 2005.

According to the lawsuit, "The defendant's reduction of staffing
of registered nurses is the evil and the fuel that led to the
revenues that has allowed the defendant to expand into all its
markets."

Mr. Williamson seeks to include in the suit millions of patients
at the company's other hospitals since 1996.

The complaint is seeking, among other relief, declaratory relief
and monetary damages, including disgorgement of profits of
$12.250 billion.

A motion to dismiss the case was granted on July 27, 2006, but
the plaintiffs have appealed this dismissal.  While the appeal
was pending, the Kansas Supreme Court for the first time
construed the Kansas Consumer Protection Act to apply to the
provision of medical services.

Based on that new ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and
remanded the action for further consideration by the trial
court.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr., Esq.
          Uzo L. Ohaebosim, Esq.
          SHORES, WILLIAMSON & OHAEBOSIM, LLC
          1400 Epic Center
          301 N. Main
          Wichita, KS 67202
          Phone: 316-261-5400
          Fax: 316-261-5404
          E-mail: l.williamson@swolawfirm.com
                  u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com


IMMUCOR INC: Defends Lawsuits on Price-Fixing of Blood Reagents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Immucor, Inc. defends purported class-action lawsuits alleging
that it conspired to fix prices at which blood reagents are sold.

Since May 18, 2009, a series of 30 lawsuits have been filed in
10 different U.S. District Courts against the company, Ortho-
Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care
Systems, Inc. alleging that the defendants conspired to fix
prices at which blood reagents are sold, asserting claims under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief, treble damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

All of these complaints make substantially the same allegations
and seek to certify a class of persons and entities who
purchased blood reagents from any of the defendants between Jan.
1, 2000 and the present.

Most of the complaints limit the proposed class to persons and
entities in the United States, but some do not contain that
limitation.

Certain of the plaintiffs have filed motions with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation asking that these cases be
centralized in a single U.S. District Court; arguments on these
motions are scheduled to be heard July 30, 2009.

On Aug. 17, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that these cases be centralized in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the process
of transferring these cases to this district is underway.  
Discovery has not yet begun in any of these cases.  No court has
made a determination whether any of the plaintiffs' claims have
merit or should be allowed to proceed as a class action,
according to the company's Oct. 2, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 31, 2009.

Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- develops,
manufactures and sells a line of reagents and automated systems
that detect and identify certain properties of the cell and
serum components of human blood for the purpose of blood
transfusion.  The company has manufacturing facilities in the
United States and Canada and sells its products through its
direct sales network in the United States, Canada, Western
Europe and Japan, as well as through third-party distributors in
other markets.  As of May 31, 2009, the company had received
orders for a total of 603 Echo instruments worldwide, including
121 orders in Europe including distributors, 470 orders in the
United States and Canada, and 12 orders in Japan.  On Aug. 4,
2008, Immucor acquired BioArray Solutions Ltd.


IMMUCOR INC: Has Yet to Respond to City of Pontiac's Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Immucor, Inc. has not yet responded to the class action complaint
filed by the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement
System.

In August 2009, the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement
System filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia against the company and nine
of its current and former directors and officers, alleging that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of purchasers of the
company's Common Stock between Oct. 19, 2005 and April 23, 2009.

The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that
the company was operating in violation of United States antitrust
laws, according to the company's Oct. 2, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Aug. 31, 2009.

Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- develops,
manufactures and sells a line of reagents and automated systems
that detect and identify certain properties of the cell and
serum components of human blood for the purpose of blood
transfusion.  The company has manufacturing facilities in the
United States and Canada and sells its products through its
direct sales network in the United States, Canada, Western
Europe and Japan, as well as through third-party distributors in
other markets.  As of May 31, 2009, the company had received
orders for a total of 603 Echo instruments worldwide, including
121 orders in Europe including distributors, 470 orders in the
United States and Canada, and 12 orders in Japan.  On Aug. 4,
2008, Immucor acquired BioArray Solutions Ltd.


IMMUCOR INC: Faces "Schlenker" Securities Suit in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Immucor, Inc. faces a class action lawsuit filed by Thomas
Schlenker in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

In September 2009, Mr. Schlenker sued the company and ten of its
current and former directors and officers, also alleging that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

This plaintiff also seeks to certify a class of purchasers of the
company's securities for the same class period.

The company has not yet responded to the complaint, according to
the company's Oct. 2, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31,
2009.

Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- develops,
manufactures and sells a line of reagents and automated systems
that detect and identify certain properties of the cell and
serum components of human blood for the purpose of blood
transfusion.  The company has manufacturing facilities in the
United States and Canada and sells its products through its
direct sales network in the United States, Canada, Western
Europe and Japan, as well as through third-party distributors in
other markets.  As of May 31, 2009, the company had received
orders for a total of 603 Echo instruments worldwide, including
121 orders in Europe including distributors, 470 orders in the
United States and Canada, and 12 orders in Japan.  On Aug. 4,
2008, Immucor acquired BioArray Solutions Ltd.


LSB INDUSTRIES: Unit Defends Suits Over Sale of Defective Coils
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of LSB Industries, Inc.'s subsidiaries in the Climate Control
Business, Climate Master, Inc., defends a class action over the
alleged sale of defective evaporator coils.

A proposed class action was filed in the Illinois state district
court in September 2007, alleging that certain evaporator coils
sold by Climate Master in the state of Illinois from 1990 to
approximately 2003 were defective.

The complaint requests certification as a class action for the
State of Illinois, which request has not yet been heard by the
court.

Climate Master has filed a motion for summary judgment as to the
plaintiffs' claims, and that motion is pending.  

Climate Master has removed this action to federal court. Climate
Master has also filed its answer denying the plaintiffs' claims
and asserting several affirmative defenses.  

Climate Master's insurers have been placed on notice of this
matter, 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.

LSB Industries, Inc. -- http://www.lsb-okc.com/-- is a  
diversified holding company, which operates through its wholly
owned subsidiary, ThermaClime, Inc. (ThermaClime) and its
subsidiaries.  The company operates in two segments: Climate
Control and Chemical.  Climate Control business is engaged in the
manufacturing and selling of a range of heating, ventilation and
air conditioning (HVAC) products for use in commercial and
residential new building construction, renovation of existing
buildings and replacement of existing systems.  Chemical business
is engaged in the manufacturing and selling of chemical products
produced from plants in Texas, Arkansas and Alabama for the
industrial, mining and agricultural markets.


MDL 1554: Order Approving $510 Mil. IPO Litigation Deal Avaialble
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As reported in the Thurs., Oct. 8, 2009, edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the Honorable Shira Ann Scheindlin gave final
approval to the $510 million settlement in In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, MDL No. 1554; Master Docket No.
21-MC-92 (S.D.N.Y.), settling 309 lawsuits that were part of a
class action against 55 underwriters and hundreds of issuers and
corporate officers filed in 2001.

A copy of Judge Scheindlin's 128-page Opinion is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/07/IPO%20settlement.pdf

The Members of the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee are:

          Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq.
          Rebecca M. Katz, Esq.
          Christian Siebott, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-779-1414

               - and -  

          Robert A. Waller, Esq.
          Ariana J. Tadler, Esq.
          Peter G.A. Safirstein, Esq.
          Neil Fraser, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: 212-946-9453

               - and -  

          David Kessler, Esq.
          BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: 610-667-7706

               - and -  

          Jules Brody, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY LLP
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-687-7230

               - and -  

          Howard B. Sirota, Esq.
          SIROTA & SIROTA LLP
          260 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-425-9055

               - and -  

          Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
          Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-545-4600

Liaison Counsel for the Underwriter Defendants is:

          Gandolfo V. DiBlasi, Esq.
          Penny Shane, Esq.
          David M.J. Rein, Esq.
          Richard J.L. Lamuscio, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-558-4000

Liaison Counsel for the Issuer Defendants is:

          Jack C. Auspitz, Esq.
          Joel C. Haims, Esq.
          Hilary M. Williams, Esq.
          Angela T. Rella, Esq.
          Reema S. Abdelhamid, Esq.
          MORRISON AND FOERSTER LLP
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10104
          Telephone: 212-468-8000


MOLSON COORS: Accused of Issuing Invalid Prize Codes
----------------------------------------------------
Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that the
owners of Coors beer knowingly issued 5 million invalid prize
codes for the "Coors Light Silver Ticket Sweepstakes," virtually
assuring that many will enter and few -- if any -- will win,
according to a class action in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Mario Aliano claims he bought a carton of Coors
Light because of the promotion, but received the message that his
prize code was invalid when he entered it online and via text
message.

On Aug. 1, Coors launched the sweepstakes to boost sales,
offering NFL tickets and gift certificates as prizes, the class
claims. Consumers are supposed to retrieve prize codes inside
beer cartons and enter them via the sweepstakes Web site or text
message, the lawsuit states.

But the plaintiffs say Molson Coors Brewing, MillerCoors and
Miller Brewing knowingly issued millions of invalid prize codes
and, despite receiving hundreds of consumer complaints, "did not
issue any statements or post on their corporate Web sites that
the Tickets were defective."

The class claims Coors continues to market and promote the
contest, despite the flaw.

Plaintiffs demand restitution and an injunction to stop the
alleged fraud, deceptive business practices, breach of warranty,
unjust enrichment and negligence.

A copy of the Complaint in Aliano v. Molson Coors Brewing
Company, et al., Case No. 09-cv-06246 (N.D. Ill.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/08/Coors.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          100 West Monroe Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Fax: (312) 440-4180


MONTREAL PROPERTY TAXES: High Court Rejects Class Action Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that The Supreme Court of Canada has
thrown out three separate efforts to start class-action cases
over property taxes in Montreal and Longueuil, Quebec.

The court says class-action suits are not the way to fight
perceived problems with municipal bylaws. The cases arose out of
municipal amalgamations in 2001, which created a new Montreal and
Longueuil.

The appellants objected to the way the new municipalities set
property-tax rates.

They wanted to file a class-action suit seeking refunds of some
of the taxes.

Lower courts in Quebec rejected that approach and their rulings
have now been upheld.


NASHUA CORP: Discovery in ERISA Suit v. State Street Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the Nashua Pension Plan Committee's consolidated
amended class action complaint against State Street Bank and
Trust Co. is ongoing, according to Nashua Corporation's Aug. 14,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

On Oct. 24, 2007, the Nashua Pension Plan Committee filed a Class
Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against State Street Bank and Trust, State Street
Global Advisors, Inc. and John Does 1-20.

On Jan. 14, 2008, the Nashua Pension Plan Committee filed a
revised Complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the same defendants.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated their
obligations as fiduciaries under the Employment Retirement Income
Securities Act of 1974.

On Feb. 7, 2008, the Court consolidated the Nashua Pension Plan
Committee action with other pending ERISA actions and appointed
the Nashua Pension Plan Committee as one of the lead plaintiffs
in the consolidated action.

On Aug. 22, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint.  The complaint alleges that State Street
failed to loyally and prudently manage assets in certain bond
funds, and seeks to recover the investment losses caused by State
Street's alleged breach of its fiduciary duties.  The aggregate
damages suffered by the proposed class have not been adjudicated
but are estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

On Oct. 17, 2008, State Street filed an answer and included a
counterclaim against the trustees of the named plaintiff plans,
including the trustees of Nashua's Pension Plan Committee,
asserting that to the extent State Street is liable to the plans,
the trustees are liable to State Street for contribution and/or
indemnification in the amount of any payment by State Street in
excess of State Street's share of liability, including fees and
costs suffered by State Street in connection with the claims
asserted in the Complaint.

On Dec. 22, 2008, State Street filed an amended counterclaim
against the trustees maintaining their allegations concerning
contribution and/or indemnification and adding a claim for breach
of fiduciary duty.  The breach of fiduciary duty claim seeks to
restore the losses suffered by the Plans.

On March 3, 2009, the trustees filed a motion to dismiss the
counterclaim.

Discovery commenced in March 2008.

Nashua Corporation -- http://www.nashua.com/-- manufactures,  
converts and markets labels and specialty papers.  The company's
primary products include thermal and other coated papers, wide-
format papers, pressure-sensitive labels, tags, and transaction
and financial receipts.  The company operates through two
segments: Label Products and Specialty Paper Products.  The
company's Label Products segment converts, prints and sells
pressure-sensitive labels, radio frequency identification (RFID)
labels and tickets and tags to distributors and end users. Nashua
Corporation's Specialty Paper Products segment coats, converts,
prints and sells papers and films.  In September 2009, Cenveo,
Inc. completed the acquisition of Nashua Corporation.


NASHUA CORP: Oct. 19 Hearing Set for Shareholder Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 19, 2009 final approval hearing has been set for the
settlement of the consolidated class action, In re Nashua
Corporation S'Holders Litigation, No. 09-cv-188-SM.

On May 6, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Cenveo, Inc. and NM Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Cenveo.

On May 20, 2009, two putative class action complaints challenging
the merger were filed in New Hampshire Superior Court for
Hillsborough County: Joel Gerber v. Nashua Corporation, et al.,
No. 09-C-307, and Oscar Schapiro v. Nashua Corporation et al.,
No. 09-E-0148.

The two suits were subsequently removed to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire and consolidated into one
action, In re Nashua Corporation Shareholders Litigation,
No. 09-cv-188-SM.

On June 18, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, purportedly on behalf of all public shareholders of
Nashua.  

The amended complaint names Nashua, its directors, Cenveo, and
Merger Sub as defendants.  It alleges, among other things, that
the consideration to be paid to Nashua shareholders in the merger
is unfair and undervalues Nashua.  It also alleges that Nashua's
directors violated their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
failing to maximize shareholder value, failing to engage in a
fair sale process, and failing to disclose in the proxy material
information regarding the merger. The amended consolidated
complaint also alleges that Cenveo and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by Nashua's
directors.

The amended and consolidated complaint seeks, among other relief,
an injunction preventing completion of the merger or, if the
merger is consummated, rescission of the merger.

The parties have entered into a settlement agreement dated as of
July 2, 2009, which provides for the disclosure of additional
information.  The settlement is subject to approval by the court.

On July 14, 2009, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement, 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.

Nashua Corporation -- http://www.nashua.com/-- manufactures,  
converts and markets labels and specialty papers.  The company's
primary products include thermal and other coated papers, wide-
format papers, pressure-sensitive labels, tags, and transaction
and financial receipts.  The company operates through two
segments: Label Products and Specialty Paper Products.  The
company's Label Products segment converts, prints and sells
pressure-sensitive labels, radio frequency identification (RFID)
labels and tickets and tags to distributors and end users. Nashua
Corporation's Specialty Paper Products segment coats, converts,
prints and sells papers and films.  In September 2009, Cenveo,
Inc. completed the acquisition of Nashua Corporation.


NASHUA CORP: "Russell" Suit Over Cenveo Merger Pending in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action challenging Nashua Corporation's merger  
with Cenveo, Inc. and NM Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Cenveo, is pending in Massachusetts.

On June 12, 2009, a putative class action challenging the merger,
William Russell v. Thomas Brooker, et al., was filed in
Massachusetts Superior Court for Suffolk County, 09-2470-BLS.

An amended complaint was filed on June 16, 2009.

The Massachusetts complaint is substantially duplicative of the
amended consolidated complaint that was filed in In re Nashua
Corporation Shareholders Litigation: it asserts substantially the
same claims against the same defendants on behalf of the same
putative class of Nashua's public shareholders.  It also seeks,
among other relief, an injunction preventing completion of the
merger, or if the merger is consummated, rescission of the merger
or rescissionary damages.

On June 23, 2009, Nashua served a motion to stay all proceedings
in the matter on the basis of the substantially duplicative,
earlier-filed federal litigation described above.

On July 3, 2009, Plaintiff sent Nashua an opposition to that
motion.  Nashua filed the motion and opposition with the court,
together with a reply brief, on July 16, 2009.

Although Nashua requested a hearing on the motion, one has not
yet been scheduled, 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.

Nashua Corporation -- http://www.nashua.com/-- manufactures,  
converts and markets labels and specialty papers.  The company's
primary products include thermal and other coated papers, wide-
format papers, pressure-sensitive labels, tags, and transaction
and financial receipts.  The company operates through two
segments: Label Products and Specialty Paper Products.  The
company's Label Products segment converts, prints and sells
pressure-sensitive labels, radio frequency identification (RFID)
labels and tickets and tags to distributors and end users. Nashua
Corporation's Specialty Paper Products segment coats, converts,
prints and sells papers and films.  In September 2009, Cenveo,
Inc. completed the acquisition of Nashua Corporation.


NATIONAL SECURITY: Suits in Hurricanes' Aftermath Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Security Group, Inc.'s property & casualty subsidiaries
continue to defend a number of legal matters filed in the
aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in Mississippi,
Louisiana, and Alabama.

These actions include individual lawsuits and purported
statewide class actions, although to date no class has been
certified in any action.

These actions make a number of allegations of underpayment of
hurricane-related claims, including allegations that the flood
exclusion found in the Company's subsidiaries' policies, and in
certain actions other insurance companies' policies, is either
ambiguous, unenforceable as unconscionable or contrary to public
policy, or inapplicable to the damage sustained.

The various suits seek a variety of remedies, including actual
and/or punitive damages in unspecified amounts and/or
declaratory relief.

All of these matters are in various stages of development,
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.

Elba, Alabama-headquartered National Security Group, Inc. --
http://www.nationalsecuritygroup.com/-- is an insurance holding
company.  The Company, through its property and casualty
subsidiaries, primarily writes personal lines coverage,
including dwelling fire and windstorm, homeowners, mobile
homeowners and personal non-standard automobile lines of
insurance in 11 states.  The Company, through its life insurance
subsidiary, offers a basic line of life, and health and accident
insurance products in six states.


OSI RESTAURANT: Continues to Defend "Ervin" Wage & Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. continues to defend a purported
class-action complaint alleging violations of state and federal
wage and hour law, 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 Feb. 21, 2008, the purported class-action complaint styled,
"Ervin, et al. v. OS Restaurant Services, Inc.," was filed in
the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois.

This lawsuit alleges violations of state and federal wage and
hour law in connection with tipped employees and overtime
compensation and seeks relief in the form of unspecified back
pay and attorney fees.

The complaint alleges a class-action under state law and a
collective action under federal law.

Tampa, Florida-based OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. --
http://www.osirestaurantpartners.com/-- which was formerly known  
as Outback Steakhouse, Inc., is a casual dining restaurant
company, with eight restaurant concepts, nearly 1,400 system-
wide restaurants.  The Company operates in all 50 states and in
20 countries internationally, predominantly through company-
owned stores, but it also operates under a variety of
partnerships and franchises.


OSI RESTAURANT: Expecting EEOC to Pursue Discrimination Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. expects the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission to pursue claims of gender discrimination
against the company on a nationwide basis through other
proceedings, 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.

Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. and OS Restaurant Services,
Inc. are the defendants in a class-action lawsuit brought by the
EEOC alleging that they have engaged in a pattern or practice of
discrimination against women on the basis of their gender with
respect to hiring and promoting into management positions as
well as discrimination against women in terms and condition of
their employment and seeks damages and injunctive relief.

The lawsuit, filed on Sept. 28, 2006, is styled, "EEOC v.
Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. and OS Restaurant Services,
Inc.," U.S. District Court, District of Colorado.

In addition to the EEOC, two former employees have successfully
intervened as party plaintiffs in the case.

On Nov. 3, 2007, the EEOC's nationwide claim of gender
discrimination was dismissed and the scope of the suit was
limited to the states of Colorado, Wyoming and Montana.

Tampa, Florida-based OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. --
http://www.osirestaurantpartners.com/-- which was formerly known  
as Outback Steakhouse, Inc., is a casual dining restaurant
company, with eight restaurant concepts, nearly 1,400 system-
wide restaurants.  The Company operates in all 50 states and in
20 countries internationally, predominantly through company-
owned stores, but it also operates under a variety of
partnerships and franchises.


PARTNERSHIP CONCEPTS: Chicago Landlord Sued for Deposit Interest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Marinov and Marieta Petrova, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situatied, filed suit against Partnership
Concepts Realty Management, Inc., and Foxboro North Associates,
Ltd. (Docket No. 2009-CH-37754, Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.) on Oct.
7, 2009.  The Plaintiffs say their Landlords failed to properly
pay interest on their security deposits.  

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Silverman, Esq.
          Mark Silverman Law Office Ltd.
          225 W. Washington, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312-775-1015


RED HAT: Defends Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Red Hat, Inc., is defending In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-473 (E.D.N.C.) (Britt, J.) -- a
consolidated securities fraud lawsuit.

In the summer of 2004, 14 class action complaints were filed
against the company and several of its present and former
officers on behalf of investors who purchased the company's
securities during various periods from June 19, 2001, through
July 13, 2004.  All 14 suits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

All of the claims arise in connection with the company
announcement on July 13, 2004, that it would restate certain of
its financial statements.

One or more of the plaintiffs assert that certain present and
former officers and the company variously violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by issuing the financial
statements that the company subsequently restated.

One or more of the plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, an accounting of
certain profits obtained by the individual defendants from
trading in the company's common stock, disgorgement by the
company's chief executive officer and former chief financial
officer of certain compensation and profits from trading in the
company's common stock pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, and other relief.

As of Sept. 8, 2004, all of these class actions were
consolidated into a single action referenced as "In re Red Hat,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:04-CV-473 BR."

A lead counsel and lead plaintiff in the case have been
designated, and on May 6, 2005, an amended consolidated class-
action complaint was filed.

On July 29, 2005, the company, on behalf of itself and the
individual defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the action for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  Also
on that date, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, another defendant,
filed a separate motion to dismiss.

On May 12, 2006, the court issued an order granting the motion
to dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act claims against
several of the individual defendants, but denying the motion to
dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act claims against the
company, its chief executive officer and its former chief
financial officer.

The court dismissed the claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in
their entirety, and also granted PwC's motion to dismiss.  A
scheduling order has been entered in the matter and discovery
was scheduled to conclude by Sept. 21, 2007.

In November 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  On May 11, 2007, the Court entered an order
denying class certification and denying all other pending
motions, including certain plaintiffs' motions for appointment
as class representative, as moot.

Thereafter, on July 13, 2007, Charles Gilbert filed a renewed
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
selection of lead counsel.

On Nov. 13, 2007, the Court entered an order allowing Mr.
Gilbert's motion, appointing him lead plaintiff and adding him
as a party plaintiff and appointing lead counsel.

On Jan. 14, 2008, Mr. Gilbert's counsel filed a motion to
certify the action as a class action.

The motion to certify the action as a class action has since
been briefed by the parties and now awaits disposition by the
Court (Class Action Reporter, July 15, 2009).

On Aug. 28, 2009, the Court entered an Order certifying the
action as a class action, appointing Gilbert as the class
representative, and defining the class as "all purchasers of the
common stock of Red Hat, Inc. between Dec. 17, 2002, and July 12,
2004, inclusive and who were damaged thereby," excluding company
insiders, according to its Oct. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 31, 2009.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         William Webb, Esq.
         THE EDMISTEN & WEBB LAW FIRM,
         P.O. Box 1509, Raleigh NC 27602
         Phone: 919-831-8700
         E-mail: woodywebb@wwedmisten.com

Red Hat's counsel is:

         Pressly M. Millen, Esq.
         WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE
         P.O. Box 831
         Raleigh, NC 27602
         Phone: 919-755-2135
         E-mail: pmillen@wcsr.com


S&T CONSTRUCTION: Construction Workers Sue for Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that S&T Construction failed to
pay its construction workers overtime, a class claims in San
Diego Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Hernandez v. S&T Construction Co.,
Case No. 37-2009-00099796-CU-OE-CTL (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego
Cty.), is available at http://is.gd/45AUI

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raul Cadena, Esq.
          Nicole R. Roysdon, Esq.
          CADENA CHURCHILL, LLP
          701 "B" Street, Suite 1400
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-456-0888
     

SALSA MARKET: Workers Sue for Overtime Pay in San Diego
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Salsa Market doesn't pay its
workers at least minimum wage, a class claims in San Diego
Superior Court.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: N.J. Class Action Attacks Plasma Televisions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Samsung Electronics America
sells defective plasma televisions that overheat, crack and lose
their picture, a class claims in Newark Federal Court.


SIX FLAGS: Mulls $2.5M Payment in Labor Suit Deal Fund in 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags, Inc., may be required to pay up to a maximum of
$2,500,000, in 2010, into the settlement fund of a purported
class-action suit filed in California, alleging labor-related
violations.

Certain plaintiffs filed the complaint on Nov. 7, 2005, on
behalf of a purported class of current and former employees
against the company in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege 10 causes of action for,
among others, unpaid wages and related penalties, and violations
of California law governing employee meal and rest breaks with
respect to Six Flags Magic Mountain, Six Flags Hurricane Harbor
Los Angeles, Six Flags Discovery Kingdom (formerly Six Flags
Marine World), Waterworld USA/Concord and Waterworld
USA/Sacramento.

On April 5, 2006, the company moved for summary judgment with
respect to some of the plaintiffs' purported claims and to
dismiss all claims against those parks and individuals who were
improperly named in the complaint.

Since that time, the plaintiffs have amended their complaint to
include several additional purported class members.  Discovery
is proceeding with respect to the company's summary judgment
motion and the class certification issue.

An agreement was reached to settle the case.  Under the
settlement, which covers the period from November 2001 to
Dec. 18, 2007, the company expressly denies any violation of
California law governing employee meal and rest breaks or other
wrongdoing.

In 2007, the company deposited into escrow $9,225,000 to be
applied to the initial settlement fund which has been recorded
in other expense.

In April 2009, the company paid approximately $255,000 into the
settlement fund based on its meeting certain performance criteria
in 2008.  

In 2010, the company may be required to pay up to a maximum of
$2,500,000 into the settlement fund based on its meeting certain
performance criteria in 2009, although the company does not
expect to incur this obligation based on 2009 operating results
to date, 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.

Six Flags, Inc. -- http://www.sixflags.com/-- is engaged in
operating regional theme parks.  During the year ended Dec. 31,
2007, the company operated 20 parks.  In April 2007, the company
sold seven parks.  The theme parks offer thrill rides, water
attractions, themed areas, concerts and shows, restaurants, game
venues and retail outlets.  In 2007, the theme parks offered
more than 840 rides, including over 130 roller coasters.


STATION CASINOS: Faces "Lukevich" Labor Suit in Nev. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Station Casinos, Inc., faces a purported class action complaint
by Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St. Cyr in the District
Court of Clark County, Nevada.

On Feb. 4, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action
complaint against the company and certain of its subsidiaries in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Case No. CV-
00141.  The plaintiffs are all former employees of the company or
its subsidiaries.  The complaint alleged that the company (i)
failed to pay its employees for all hours worked, (ii) failed to
pay overtime, (iii) failed to timely pay wages and (iv)
unlawfully converted certain earned wages.  The complaint in the
Federal Court Action sought, among other relief, class
certification of the lawsuit, compensatory damages in excess of
$5,000,000, punitive damages and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to plaintiffs' counsel.

On Oct. 31, 2008, the company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings.  During a hearing on that motion, the U.S. District
Court questioned whether it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the
matter. After briefing regarding the jurisdiction question, on
May 16, 2009, the U.S. District Court dismissed the Federal Court
Action for lack of jurisdiction and entered a judgment in the
company's favor.

On July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action
complaint against the company and certain of its subsidiaries in
the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A-09-595614-
C.  The complaint in the State Court Action alleges substantially
the same claims that were alleged in the complaint in the Federal
Court Action.  The corporate defendants, other than the company,
are required to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint in
the State Court Action on or before Aug. 19, 2009, 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.

Station Casinos, Inc. -- http://www.stationcasinos.com/-- is a   
gaming and entertainment company that currently owns and
operates nine major hotel/casino properties (one of which is 50%
owned) and eight smaller casino properties (three of which are
50% owned), in the Las Vegas metropolitan area, as well as
manages a casino for a Native American tribe.


US SUGAR: Final Hearing on Shareholder Settlement Set for Jan. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis S. (Mike) Eidson, Esq., Senior Partner at the Coral Gables-
based law firm Colson Hicks Eidson, reports that his law firm has
successfully reached a settlement for a total potential value of
$15.9 million with the U.S. Sugar Corporation in Matura v. White,
et al., Case No. 08-cv-80711 (S.D. Fla.) (Marra, J.), on behalf
of the employee shareholders and other shareholders of the
Clewiston, Florida-based company.  U.S. Sugar is the country's
largest producer of sugar cane and refined cane sugar and is one
of Florida's major producers of oranges and orange juice
products.

The class action lawsuit was filed in West Palm Beach Federal
Court in January 2008 on behalf of 4,000 current and former U.S.
Sugar employees including farm field workers, union mill workers,
administrative staff, and others who own or owned a large
percentage of the company's shares through an Employee Stock
Ownership Plan (ESOP), and other shareholders including several
Michigan-based charities. The lawsuit alleged U.S. Sugar's Board
of Directors failed to inform shareholders of two lucrative
buyout offers thus denying them a substantial profit on their
shares and undervalued the shares held by the ESOP.

A final approval hearing has been scheduled for January 4, 2010.
The settlement requires U.S. Sugar to pay $8.4 million to the
employee shareholders and other shareholders upon final approval,
with the balance of $7.5 million to be paid upon U.S. Sugar and
the State of Florida successfully completing their deal relating
to the U.S. Sugar property, expected to be completed in 2010.

"We have been litigating this action very aggressively for almost
two years and are very pleased to have reached a settlement of
all claims. We believe the settlement is fair for the ESOP
participants and shareholders of U.S. Sugar," said Plaintiffs'
attorney Mike Eidson who filed the case along with his partners
Roberto Martinez and Curtis Miner.  Eidson is a past president of
the American Association for Justice, the world's largest trial
lawyers' bar with 60,000 members worldwide.

Colson Hicks Eidson is a trial firm with more than 35 years of
experience handling local, national and international litigation.
Partners at the firm have had the distinction of holding the
following offices: President of the Association of Trial Lawyers
of America; President of the International Academy of Trial
Lawyers; President of the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers;
President of the Dade County Bar Association; United States
Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; and, Chairman of
the Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission.

Eidson is best known for his work as the lead counsel in some of
the largest automobile recalls in U.S. history: the Ford Pinto,
the Chrysler Minivan and most recently, the Firestone/Ford tire
tread separation. The outcomes of these cases created higher
safety standards in the automobile industry safeguarding
consumers across the globe.  Mr. Martinez is a former United
States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida known for
his work as a former federal prosecutor and as counsel for
plaintiffs in major commercial and tort litigation, including the
Brothers to the Rescue anti-terrorism litigation, the Eller Media
bus shelter electrocution case, and the Rafael Sanchez lawsuit
against the Government of Aruba.  Mr. Miner is best known for his
work as a former Assistant United States Attorney for the
Southern District of Florida prosecuting major political, police,
and public corruption cases and for serving as lead counsel to
the Federal Receivership of the Mutual Benefits Corporation.


WELLS FARGO: Bankr. Ct. Has Jurisdiction for In Personam Relief
---------------------------------------------------------------
WestLaw reports that claims asserted by a Chapter 7 trustee on
behalf of a putative class of bankruptcy trustees throughout the
United States, seeking a determination that a mortgage lender and
its affiliated entities did not hold allowable claims in
connection with mortgage notes that had been assigned to them
without assignment of the associated mortgage, or without
recording of any mortgage assignment, and seeking to enjoin the
lender and its affiliated entities from falsely representing
their status as holders of both the mortgage notes and
accompanying mortgages, were claims over which the court could
exercise jurisdiction as claims seeking in personam relief
against the lender and its affiliated entities for actions that
they allegedly took, or failed to take, that systematically
abused the bankruptcy process.  The federal statute providing
that the district court in the judicial district in which a
bankruptcy case is commenced or pending shall have exclusive
jurisdiction over all property of the debtor, wherever located,
and over property of the estate, had to be read narrowly to limit
the exclusive jurisdiction of the "home" bankruptcy court
strictly to in rem matters.  In re Krause, Bankr. Case No.
07-35568; Harker v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Adv. Pro. No. 08-3111
--- B.R. ----, 2009 WL 2837428 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio, Sept. 2, 2009)
(Humphrey, J.).


WILLIAMS TRANSPORT: Drivers Claim They Weren't Paid Minimum Wage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran at The West Virginia Record reports that group of
Williams Transport drivers have filed a putative class action
suit against the company and against CSX Transportation, alleging
they were not paid minimum wage.

The plaintiffs in Adkins, et al. v. Williams Transport and CSX
Transportation, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-01052 (S.D. W.Va.) (Boone,
J.), claim they did not receive minimum wage based upon the
number of hours they were forced to work in a week.

As part of their jobs, Williams Transport drivers were required
to provide transportation services to CSX workers and would be
under their control during this time, according to the complaint
filed Sept. 28 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of West Virginia.

Frequently, drivers were forced to work more than 40 hours per
week, but were not paid for the extra time spent on the job, the
complaint says.

CSX employees and Williams Transport authorities should have
known the drivers were not being paid minimum wage, but did
nothing to prevent the illegality of the situation, the suit
states.

"Based on the foregoing, Defendant's conduct in this regard was a
violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and entitles
Plaintiff to compensation for all hours in which they were not
paid minimum wage, overtime hours worked, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and court costs," the complaint says.

Plaintiffs named in the suit include Johnny Adkins, Leslie
Adkins, Carlina Albright, Connie Albright, Scotty Albright, Roger
Baldwin, Johnny Bell, Kimberly Bell, Pauline Bell, Roy Bell,
Joseph Bumbarner, James E. Carr, Charles Curry, Harry Dunalp,
James P. Goode, Anna Mae, Steven Michonski and Gregory H.
Parsley.

They are seeking unpaid wages that are under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, overtime due, liquidated damages, interest, costs,
attorneys' fees and other relief the court deems just.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          G. Patrick Jacobs, Esq.
          7020 MacCorkle Avenue, SE
          Charleston, WV 25304
          Telephone: 304/926-6676
          Fax: 304/926-8336
          E-mail: pjacobs@bjblaw.com

               - and -  

          George B. Morrone, III, Esq.
          Cynthia M. Ranson, Esq.
          J. Michael Ranson, Esq.
          RANSON LAW OFFICES
          P. O. Box 3589
          Charleston, WV 25336-3589
          Telephone: 304/345-1990
          Fax: 304/345-1999
          E-mail: gbm@ransonlaw.com


* Berger & Montague Named on to Nat.L.J.'s 2009 "Hot List"
----------------------------------------------------------
The Philadelphia law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C., has been
named to the National Law Journal's 2009 "Plaintiffs' Hot List."
This is the sixth time that Berger & Montague has received this
special and prestigious honor.  The National Law Journal has
selected Berger & Montague for this award in 2003, 2004, 2005,
2007, 2008, and 2009.

The National Law Journal's "Hot List" recognizes outstanding
plaintiffs' law firms, nominating those firms in the United
States that did "exemplary, cutting-edge work on the plaintiffs'
side between the summer of 2008 and the summer of 2009." The
winning firms had to prevail "in a bench or jury trial when the
stakes were high, meaning that a substantial amount of money was
at issue, or that the case could affect the litigation strategy
or outcome of similar cases nationally." The National Law Journal
also focused on "wins that could effect significant social change
or civil rights gains." The National Law Journal selected "firms
that struck us as representing the bar's best qualities and that
demonstrated unusual flair and creativity."

The National Law Journal wrote:

     Philadelphia-based Berger & Montague can claim 39 years of
     successful practice, primarily in complex plaintiffs'
     litigation in securities, antitrust, consumer fraud,
     environmental and employment law. During the past year, the
     Philadelphia firm reached nine-figure settlements on behalf
     of two large classes.

The National Law Journal singled out Berger & Montague's
achievements during the past year in:

     -- In re Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. Sec., Derivative &
        ERISA Litig., No. 07-CV-09633 (S.D.N.Y.)
        ($475 million settlement in one of the first securities
        class actions arising from the subprime mortgage
        meltdown);

     -- In re TriCor Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig.,
        No. 05-340 (D. Del.) ($250 million antitrust class
        action settlement); and

     -- New Jersey v. Qwest Communication Int'l, No.
        MER-L-3438-02 (Mercer Co., N.J., Super. Ct.)
        ($45 million settlement on behalf of the State of
        New Jersey in a case that established that in New
        Jersey, unlike in federal court, plaintiffs can
        recover from auditors and other enablers of fraud).

These were just some of Berger & Montague's many achievements in
the past year.  For example, in June 2008, in Cook v. Rockwell
International Corporation (Rocky Flats), No. 90-CV-181 (D.
Colo.), Berger & Montague obtained a judgment of $926 million,
including compensatory and punitive damages, following a trial on
behalf of thousands of property owners against the former
operators of the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant in Colorado.

Berger & Montague -- http://www.bergermontague.com/-- consists  
of over 60 attorneys who represent plaintiffs in complex
litigation. The firm has played lead roles in major cases for
almost 40 years resulting in recoveries of billions of dollars
for its clients and the classes they represent.


* Is the Death of the Securities Class Action Greatly Exaggerated?
------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's been a source of some mystery over the last several
months," Ashby Jones at The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog
writes.  "Where have all the securities class-actions gone?  The
drop in filings has caused folks to wonder whether the heyday of
the 10b-5 suit is over or whether the blip was simply temporary."

We're starting to see signs now, however, like a hillside of
brushland years after a fire, Mr. Jones continues, that signs of
life are returning.  According to a recent post by Kevin
LaCroix over at the D&O Diary blog, "securities class action
lawsuit filings during the third quarter were closer to
historical norms . . . ."

According to Mr. LaCroix's count, there were 49 new securities
class action lawsuits during the third quarter, which brings the
year to date total of new securities class action lawsuit filings
to 143.  Mr. LaCroix writes: "The annualized equivalent of the
filings for the first nine months of 2009 projects to a twelve-
month filing rate of 191, which is slightly below but still well
within range of the average of 197.7 annual filings during the
13-year period between 1996 and 2008."

So the numbers may be back up, but upon closer inspection at the
breakdown, LaCroix still sees irregularity, specifically in the
fact that the number of monthly filings has varied significantly
in recent months.

     There may be any number of reasons for this fluctuation,
     but I continue to believe that the fluctuations are largely
     due to the fact that the plaintiffs' lawyers are jammed up
     with the mass of lawsuits they filed over the last three
     years. . . .  These filings may suggest that the plaintiffs'
     lawyers have been so preoccupied with the other cases and
     with the Madoff lawsuits that they developed a backlog,
     which they are now getting around to working off.

So what accounted for the drop and subsequent bounceback?  In Mr.
LaCroix' opinion, the dip was, perhaps ironically, partly due to
the global meltdown, which really affected all sectors and most
companies, making it hard to tie any given stock drop to fraud or
other impropriety.  Writes Mr. LaCroix:

     What started several years ago with the subprime meltdown
     has evolved into a global financial crisis, affecting all
     companies across the entire economy.  As a result of these
     developments, it has become increasingly difficult to define
     precisely what constitutes a subprime and credit crisis-
     related lawsuit.  It may not be so much that the subprime
     and credit crisis litigation wave has crested as it is that
     the wave has merged into a larger tidal movement and is no
     longer its own separately identifiable phenomenon.

In addition to plaintiffs' lawyers "working off" the backlog, Mr.
LaCroix surmises that the recent bump has a bit to do with "new
cases involving unusual targets," like ETF Funds, closed-end
investment funds and mortgage trusts.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Coughlin Stoia Files Fraud Suit in S.D. Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action
on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Men's Wearhouse Inc. (NYSE:MW)
between March 7, 2007, and January 9, 2008, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel
H. Rudman, Esq., or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq., of Coughlin Stoia
at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@csgrr.com.
If you are a member of this Class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at:

     http://www.csgrr.com/cases/menswearhouse/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Men's Wearhouse and certain of its
executives with violations of the Exchange Act.  Men's Wearhouse
describes itself as "one of North America's largest specialty
retailers of men's apparel with 1,284 stores."  The Company's
U.S. retail apparel stores are operated under the brand names of
Men's Wearhouse and K&G.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made numerous positive statements regarding the
Company's financial condition, business and prospects.  The
complaint further alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because defendants failed to disclose the
following adverse facts, among others: (a) that the K&G division
was performing poorly and not meeting internal expectations; (b)
that the Company was experiencing significant difficulties
integrating the After Hours acquisition which was causing a
severe disruption in that division's business and reducing sales
volumes below budgeted levels; (c) that, given the deteriorating
demand for the Company's products, the Company was forced to
significantly discount products beyond customary discounts which
would further erode earnings; and (d) that as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements concerning the
Company's guidance and prospects were lacking in a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.

On January 9, 2008, Men's Wearhouse announced its mid fourth
quarter update for the quarter ending February 2, 2008. In
response to the Company's reduced guidance for fiscal 2007, the
price of Men's Wearhouse common stock fell $7.60 per share, or
30%, to close at $17.84 per share, on January 10, 2008, on
extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Men's Wearhouse common stock during the Class Period.  The
plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise
in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

Coughlin Stoia, a 190-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C.,
Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending
in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has
taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of
defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims
of human rights violations.  The Coughlin Stoia Web site at
http://www.csgrr.com/has more information about the firm.

                            *********

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  * * *