CAR_Public/091014.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 14, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 203
  
                            Headlines

BRIDGEPORT PORT: 10 Conn. Ferry Riders Call Fare Unconstitutional
CHARLES SCHWAB: Court Issues YieldPlus Class Pendency Notice
CHATTEM INC: Suit Filed in S.D. Fla. Over Garlic Supplement
DUPONT CO: New Jersey Class Action C8 Suit Can Proceed
FACEBOOK INC: Accused of Disclosing Members' Movie Rentals

FACET BIOTECH: Shareholders Complain About Proposed Biogen Deal
HARLEY DAVIDSON: Wisc. ERISA Class Action Complaint is Dismissed
HURON CONSULTING: Faces "Fisher" Suit Over Restatement in Ill.
INDYMAC MORTGAGE: Report Reveals Plaintiffs' Progress in "Benito"
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Workers' Overtime Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.

MDL 1996: Defendants Move to Dismiss Potash Buyers' Amended Suit
OHIO: Oct. 19 Objection Deadline for Disabled Students Settlement
OHIO: Renewed Bid for Class Certification in Early Screening Case
REED'S REFORESTATION: 300 Guatemalans Allege Forced Labor
ROGERS INT'L: Consolidated Amended "Lane" Suit Nixed in June

ROGERS INT'L: "Watkins" Suit in New York Remains Pending
STANFORD FINANCIAL: Chadbourne & Park Named as a Defendants
T-MOBILE: Class Action Lawyer Competition Promotes Justice
TREASURE RESORT: Sued by Singapore Resort Club Members
VISA INC: Modified Prepayment Terms Gets Final Approval

VIVENDI SA: Sues French Plaintiffs in S.D.N.Y. Case in Paris
XFONE INC: Fleisig's Damages Suit for Billed Attempts Pending

* William Athanas, Esq., Joins Waller Lansden in Birmingham

                            *********

BRIDGEPORT PORT: 10 Conn. Ferry Riders Call Fare Unconstitutional
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that ten regular
riders of the Bridgeport and Port Jefferson Steamboat Ferry claim
in a class action that the ferry fares are unconstitutional.  
They say the Bridgeport Port Authority jacked up fees to cover
the cost of litigating a previous lawsuit over fares, which the
Port Authority lost.

When the Bridgeport Port Authority was created in 1993, the ferry
fee was 50 cents per passenger and $1 per car, according to the
federal complaint.  In 2003 the BPA doubled the charges, and
passengers sued the agency, challenging the constitutionality of
the fees hike.

The Port Authority responded by adding another $1 surcharge in
2006 to help pay the costs of the suit, according to the most
recent complaint.

In July 2008, U.S. District Judge Christopher Droney ruled that
the fares collected from April 2001 to March 2006 violated the
Commerce and Tonnage Clauses of the Constitution and were
excessive by about $8.7 million.

The class seeks that money as damages, plus punitive damages and
an injunction.

Defendants include the City of Bridgeport, the BPA and all five
of its commissioners.

A copy of the Complaint in Desan, et al. v. Bridgeport Port
Authority, et al., Case No. 09-cv-1605 (D. Conn.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/12/FerryFees.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
          221 Main Street, Suite 502
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: 860-522-8888

               - and -  

          Larry Adler, Esq.
          ADLER LAW GROUP
          290 Roberts Street, Suite 101
          East Hartford, CT 06108
          Telephone: 860-282-8686


Court Issues Class Pendency Notice in Schwab YieldPlus Class
Action, Hagens
Berman Announces


CHARLES SCHWAB: Court Issues YieldPlus Class Pendency Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in San Francisco issued a notice of
pendency Monday to all class members involved in the Charles
Schwab (Nasdaq: SCHW) YieldPlus litigation that claims the
company misled investors about the diversification and safety of
Schwab YieldPlus Funds Investor Shares (Nasdaq: SWYPX) and Schwab
YieldPlus Funds Select Shares (Nasdaq: SWYSX ).

The notice includes details and instructions for participation in
the lawsuit and potential recovery, outlines three specific
classes already approved by the court as well as instructions for
those who wish to opt out as a class member.

The notice details three certified classes of investors:

     (A) All persons or entities who acquired shares of the fund
         from Nov. 15, 2006, through March 17, 2008 and is  
         traceable to a false and misleading registration
         statement and were damaged;

     (B) All persons or entities who acquired shares of the fund
         from May 31, 2006, through March 17, 2008 and is
         traceable to a false and misleading prospectus for the
         fund; and

     (c) All California resident investors who held shares of
         the YieldPlus fund on Sept. 1, 2006.

The notice declares that all eligible investors, as outlined
above, are included in the lawsuit and require no further action
to remain a class member.

For those who wish to opt out as a class member, you need to
contact Gilardi & Co. LLC in writing by Monday, Dec. 28, 2009.
After opting out of this suit, individuals can choose to pursue
further legal action through their own counsel and at their own
expense.

Anyone who wishes to opt out as a class member needs to send a
written request for exclusion from the class membership to:
               
          In re Schwab Corp. Secs. Litigation Exclusions
          c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
          PO Box 808061
          Petaluma, CA 94975-8061

Investors and eligible class members can view the notice in full
at http://www.hbsslaw.com/schw

Further information about this case may be obtained by
contacting the Notice Administrator directly at (888) 955-2703.

The lawsuit is still pending in court and this notice is not an
expression by the court of any opinion in the pending litigation.

The lawsuit, first filed by Hagens Berman in U.S. District Court
in Northern California, alleges Schwab omitted important
information from the funds' SEC Registration Statement,
Prospectus and selling representation, including how heavily the
funds were exposed to sub-prime mortgage risks.

The lawsuit claims more than 50 percent of the funds' assets are
invested in the risky mortgage industry -- a percentage that grew
as the company abandoned the original objectives of the funds in
pursuit of higher yields.

For more information about the lawsuit, progress and Monday's
notice please visit http://www.hbsslaw.com/


CHATTEM INC: Suit Filed in S.D. Fla. Over Garlic Supplement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chattem, Inc., disclosed that it has been named as a defendant in
a putative class action lawsuit entitled Wilson v. Chattem, Inc.,
Case No. 09-cv-80681 (S.D. Fla.) (Dimitrouleas, J.).

The lawsuit, filed by Florida consumer James A. Wilson, relates
to the labeling, advertising, promotion and sale of Chattem's
Garlique product.  The company was served with this lawsuit on
May 27, 2009.  The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief,
compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney fees.  The
plaintiff alleges that the company mislabeled its product
and made false advertising claims.  The plaintiff seeks
certification of a national class.

The disclosure appeared in the company's Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended Aug. 31, 2009, delivered to the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 6, 2009.

Mr. Wilson is represented by:

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

               - and -  

          Brian William Smith, Esq.
          SMITH & VANTURE, LLP
          1615 Forum Place
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: 561-684-6330
          Fax: 561-688-0630
          E-mail: bws@smithvanture.com

Chattem is represented by:

          Mercer Kaye Clarke, Esq.
          Craig Salner, Esq.
          CLARKE SILVERGLATE & CAMPBELL, P.A.
          799 Brickell Plaza, 9th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 305-377-0700
          Fax: 305-377-3001
          E-mail: bclarke@csclawfirm.com
                  csalner@csclawfirm.com

Chattem, Inc. -- http://www.chattem.com/-- is a marketer and
manufacturer of a portfolio of branded over-the-counter (OTC)
healthcare products, toiletries and dietary supplements, in such
categories as medicated skin care products, topical pain care,
oral care, internal OTC, medicated dandruff shampoos, dietary
supplements, and other OTC and toiletry products.  The company's
portfolio of products includes brands, such as Gold Bond,
Cortizone-10 and Balmex (medicated skin care); Icy Hot,
Aspercreme and Capzasin (topical pain care); ACT and Herpecin-L
(oral care); Unisom, Pamprin and Kaopectate (internal OTC);
Selsun Blue (medicated dandruff shampoos); Dexatrim, Garlique
and New Phase (dietary supplements), and Bullfrog, UltraSwim and
Sun-In (other OTC and toiletry products).  Its products are sold
primarily through mass merchandisers, independent and chain drug
stores, drug wholesalers and food stores in the United States,
and in various markets in approximately 80 countries worldwide.


DUPONT CO: New Jersey Class Action C8 Suit Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
WaterTech Online.com reports that a U.S. District Court judge on
October 9 ruled in Rowe v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company,
Case No. 06-1810 (D. N.J.), and Scott v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours
and Company, Case No. 06-3080 (D. N.J.), that a class-action
lawsuit can proceed against DuPont Co. in southern New Jersey,
where some residents are arguing that DuPont has contaminated
their drinking water with ammonium perfluorooctanoate, or PFOA
(also known as C8), a chemical used to make cookware, according
to recent media reports.

The Charleston, W.Va., Gazette's political watchdog blog
"Sustained Outrage" reported October 9, "Ruling in two different
cases against DuPont, U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb
allowed residents to pursue claims of private nuisance and strict
liability as class-action suits against the chemical giant."

Attorney Stuart Lieberman, Esq., who represents a potential class
of 15,000 residents of Penns Grove, Salem County, who live near
DuPont's Chambers Works plant, is quoted in an October 12 KYW
Newsradio 1060 Philadelphia report: "People who drank something
that they shouldn't drink, and did so unknowingly, will now have
judicial recourse. And, more importantly, they'll be able to have
safer drinking water."

DuPont told KYW Newsradio that the company is reviewing the
judge's decision.

According to the "Sustained Outrage" blog, this recent action is
"quite different from that in a similar West Virginia case, where
US District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin has declined to allow
residents to proceed as a class and - in a bombshell ruling last
week -- dismissed all claims against DuPont except for medical
monitoring."

Goodwin was ruling in a case brought by residents of the city of
Parkersburg, whose water supply had been polluted with C8,
reportedly from DuPont's nearby Washington Works plant.

KYW Newsradio's report is available at http://is.gd/4g3hB

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew J. Chamberlain, Esq.
          Michael George Sinkevich, Jr., Esq.
          Shari M. Blecher, Esq.
          Stuart J. Lieberman, Esq.
          LIEBERMAN & BLECHER, P.C.
          10 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 100
          Princeton, NJ 08540

DuPont is represented by:

          Roy Alan Cohen, Esq.
          PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, PC
          100 Southgate Parkway
          P.O. Box 1997
          Morristown, NJ 07962


FACEBOOK INC: Accused of Disclosing Members' Movie Rentals
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Facebook violated privacy by
posting the movies that its members rent from Blockbuster on
their Facebook profile, without consent, a class action claims in
Dallas Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Harris, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., Case
No. 09-cv-01912 (N.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/12/CCAFace.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremy R. Wilson, Esq.
          Thomas M. Corea, Esq.
          THE COREA FIRM P.L.L.C.
          1201 Elm St., Suite 4150
          Dallas, TX 75270
          Telephone: 214-953-3900
     
               - and -  

          George A. Otstott, Esq.
          Ann Jamison, Esq.
          OTSOTT & JAMISON, P.C.
          Two Energy Square
          4849 Greenville Ave., Suite 1620
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: 214-522-9999

Wendy Davis at Online Media Daily reports that Facebook probably
thought its Beacon problems were behind it last month, when it
announced an agreement to settle a class-action privacy lawsuit.
But three Texas residents who have a pending lawsuit against
Blockbuster for participating in the Beacon program have just
filed a new case against Facebook.

In the Harris suit filed Friday, consumers allege that the Beacon
program violated the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act by sharing
information about their movie rentals and purchases without first
obtaining their written consent.  That statute provides for
damages of $2,500 per incident.

A Facebook spokesperson declined to comment on the potential
class-action lawsuit except to tell Ms. Davis: "This suit is
without merit and we will fight it vigorously."

At this point, Ms. Davis says, it's not clear whether the new
lawsuit will affect the proposed settlement of a separate class-
action lawsuit in California against Facebook.  That agreement
calls for Facebook to permanently shutter Beacon and to pay $9.5
million to a settlement fund.  Around two-thirds of the money
will be used to create a new privacy research foundation.  
Individual plaintiffs in that case also will receive settlements
ranging from $15,000 to $1,000.

Facebook's Beacon program told users about their friends'
e-commerce activity at sites like Zappos, Blockbuster and
Overstock. The platform initially operated by default, spreading
news about members' purchases unless they affirmatively opted
out.  Within weeks of its November 2007 launch, Facebook revamped
the program to make it opt-in.  Shortly afterwards, the company
added a feature that allowed people to permanently opt out.

The Texas residents who just sued Facebook recently won a
significant ruling against Blockbuster stemming from its
participation in Beacon.  Earlier this year, a federal judge
rejected the movie rental store's argument that the case should
have been brought before an arbitrator.  Blockbuster argued that
its contract with users calls for any disputes to be heard by an
arbitrator rather than in court, and also said users waived their
right to file a class action lawsuit.

But U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Lynn in Dallas held that
Blockbuster's contract with users was "illusory" because the
agreement said that movie rental store could change the terms and
conditions at any time.  Therefore, she ruled, the case could
proceed in federal court as a class-action.  Blockbuster is
appealing that decision.


FACET BIOTECH: Shareholders Complain About Proposed Biogen Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Directors of Facet Biotech failed to maximize shareholder value
in a proposed deal with Biogen Idec, Facet shareholders claim in
San Diego Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Dugdale v. Hasnain, et al., Case No.
37-2009-00099044-CU-BT-CTL (Calif. Super. Ct., Dan Diego Cty.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/12/SCAFacet.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          Aaron W. Beard, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-231-1058

               - and -  

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP
          275 Madison Ave., Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-682-1818


HARLEY DAVIDSON: Wisc. ERISA Class Action Complaint is Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Charles Clevert, Jr., entered an orer dismissing  
the class action Complaint alleging ERISA violations in In re
Harley Davidson, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-C-912
(E.D. Wisc.).  

"[T]he complaint fails to state a claim that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1104(a)
by not managing the Plans in the best interests of the
participants. . . .  Consequently, related and derivative
allegations of breach of a duty of loyalty, duty to monitor and
investigate, co-fiduciary liability, and knowing breach of
fiduciary duty . . . fail as a matter of law. . . .  See e.g.,
In re RadioShack Corp. ERISA Litig., 547 F. Supp. 2d at 616
("Plaintiffs' claims for failure to monitor other fiduciaries,
co-fiduciary liability, and conflict of interest are derivative
of their other claims.  Thus, because the fiduciary-duty and
misrepresentation claims are subject to dismissal, these claims
are as well."); Delta Air Lines, 422 F. Supp. 2d at 1333-34
(same); Edgar v. Avaya, Inc., No. 05-3598, 2006 WL 1084087, *11
(D. N.J. April 25, 2006) (noting that upon finding that
defendants did not breach fiduciary duty under ERISA by failing
to manage the Plans in the best interests of the participants,
related claims of breach of duty of loyalty, breach of duty to
monitor, and breach of co-fiduciary duty all fail), aff'd, 503
F.3d 340," Judge Clevert says.  


HURON CONSULTING: Faces "Fisher" Suit Over Restatement in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huron Consulting Group Inc. intends to defend a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, according to the company's Form 8-K Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Oct. 6,
2009.  The purported class action complaint was filed in
connection with the company's restatement of its 2006 to 2009
financial statements.  

The complaint in Fisher v. Huron Consulting Group, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 09-cv-05475 (N.D. Ill.) (St. Eve, J.), was filed on
Sept. 3, 2009.  Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge, Wayne Lipski and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP are named as co-defendants.  

The complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, contends that the company and the
individual defendants issued false and misleading statements
regarding the company's financial results and compliance with
generally accepted accounting principles and seeks unspecified
damages and reimbursement for fees and expenses incurred in
connection with the action, including attorneys' fees.

Mr. Fisher is represented by:

          David Barry Kahn, Esq.
          Michael Thomas Layden, Esq.  
          David B. Kahn & Associates, Ltd.
          One Northfield Plaza, Suite 100
          Northfield, IL 60093
          Telephone: (847) 501-5083
          E-mail: dkahn@kahnlawchicago.com
                  mlayden@rjpltd.com

Huron is represented by:

          John C. Ellis, Esq.
          Mark E. King, Esq.
          Richard J. Prendergast, Esq.
          Richard J. Prendergast, Ltd.
          111 West Washington, Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 641-0881
          E-mail: jellis@rjpltd.com
                  mking@kahnlawchicago.com
                  rprendergast@rjpltd.com

The Inter-Local Pension Fund of the Graphic Communications
Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters has
entered its appearance and is represented by:

          Jonathan Nachsin, Esq.
          Jonathan Nachsin, P.C.
          l05 West Adams Street, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 327-1777
          E-mail: nachsin@att.net

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


INDYMAC MORTGAGE: Report Reveals Plaintiffs' Progress in "Benito"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John L. Smith at the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that the
number of plaintiffs in Benito, et al., v. IndyMac Mortgage
Services, Case No. 09-cv-01218 (D. Nev.) (Pro, J.), is growing,
the fight with their mortgage lender has intensified, and they're
making progress.  

Among many allegations, the attorneys contend OneWest "breached
the loan agreements/contracts by failing to disclose the
following: APR, method of determining the finance charge,
balance, actual finance charge, total payments, amount financed,
number of payments, and due dates.  OneWest breached the loan
agreements/contracts by doubling Plaintiffs mortgage payments
when the mortgage 'arms' came due."

Although they come from vastly different backgrounds, Mr. Smith
says, the homeowners share a common story of how creatively they
were qualified for their loans.  Some of the loan documents, Mr.
Smith quips, contained more fiction than a Stephen King novel.

The lawsuit was filed in June 2009 in Nevada State Court, Case
No. A591942 (8th J. Dist. Ct., Clark Cty.), and removed to
Federal Court on July 6, 2009.  In September, the Honorable
Philip Pro signed a stipulation extending the preliminary
discovery process another 90 days.  Indymac/OneWest will have
until Jan. 15 to reply.  Meanwhile, all action against the more
than two-dozen homeowners battling it out with a mortgage giant
is frozen.

Mr. Smith's complete report is available at http://is.gd/4hcR0

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brooke A. Bohlke, Esq.
          Matthew Q. Callister, Esq.
          CALLISTER & REYNOLDS
          823 Las Vegas Boulevard South
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: 702-385-3343

IndyMac Mortgage Services is represented by:

          Richard E. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Brett J. Natarelli, Esq.
          Renee L. Zipprich, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT, PLLC
          10 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312-876-1700

               - and -  

          David A. Carroll, Esq.
          Tamara Beatty Peterson, Esq.
          JONES VARGAS
          3773 Howard Hughes Pkwy., 3rd Floor So.
          Las Vegas, NV 89109
          Telephone: 702-862-3300


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Workers' Overtime Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators, Inc., removed a lawsuit alleging the retailer
failed to pay overtime to employees filed by Crelencio Chavez and
Joe Zaldivar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Case No. RG09472265 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.),
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (Case No. 09-cv-04812), on Oct. 09, 2009.  


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Tafoya, Esq.
          David Garcia, Esq.
          TAFOYA & GARCIA, LLP
          205 S. Broadway, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-617-0500

               - and -  

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          Citigroup Center, Suite 1370
          444 S. Flower St.
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-488-6555

Lumber Liquidators, Inc., is represented by:

          Eric Meckley, Esq.
          Jennifer Svanfeldt, Esq.
          Sacha Steenhoek, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: 415-442-1000


MDL 1996: Defendants Move to Dismiss Potash Buyers' Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants in multiple class-action lawsuits by direct and
indirect purchasers of potash in the United States have moved to
dismiss an amended complaint filed by direct and indirect
purchasers of potash products.  

On Sept. 11, 2008, two complaints were filed against alleged
potash distributors:

     -- Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium Inc., Agrium U.S. Inc., Mosaic
        Company, Mosaic Crop Nutrition L.L.C., Potash Corporation
        of Saskatchewan Inc., PCS Sales (USA), Inc., JSC
        Uralkali, Rue Pa Belaruskali, Rue Pa Belarusian Potash
        Company, BPC Chicago L.L.C., JSC Silvinit and JSC
        International Potash Company, Case No. 08-cv-05162
        (D. Minn.) (Doty, J.); and

     -- Gage's Fertilizer & Grain, Inc. v. Agrium Inc., Agrium
        U.S. Inc., Mosaic Company, Mosaic Crop Nutrition L.L.C.,
        Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc., PCS Sales (USA),
        Inc., JSC Uralkali, RUE PA Belaruskali, RUE PA
        Belarussian Potash Company, BPC Chicago L.L.C., JSC
        Silvinit and JSC International Potash Company, Case No.
        08-cv-05192 (N.D. Ill.) (Castillo, J.).  

Other antitrust lawsuits followed, and the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation consolidated them into one action.   

In late 2008 and early 2009, consolidated class action complaints
were filed by direct and indirect purchasers against the
defendants in In re Potash Antitrust Litigaiton (No. II), MDL No.
1996; Master Docket No. 08-C-6910 (N.D. Ill.) (Castillo, J.).

The amended consolidated complaints generally alleges, among
other matters, that the defendants: conspired to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price at which potash was sold in the
United States; exchanged information about prices, capacity,
sales volume and demand; allocated market shares, customers and
volumes to be sold; coordinated on output, including the
limitation of production; and fraudulently concealed their
anticompetitive conduct.

The plaintiffs generally seek injunctive relief and to recover
unspecified amounts of damages, including treble damages, arising
from defendants' alleged combination or conspiracy to
unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation of Section
1 of the Sherman Act.

The plaintiffs also seek costs of suit, reasonable attorneys'
fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

On June 15, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint.


OHIO: Oct. 19 Objection Deadline for Disabled Students Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
              IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
               FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
                       EASTERN DIVISION

     JOHN DOE, et al.,         :
                               :
           Plaintiffs,         :    Case No. 2:91-cv-464
                               :
        v.                     :    JUDGE HOLSCHUH
                               :
     STATE OF OHIO, et al.,    :    MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEMP
                               :
           Defendants.         :

        AMENDED NOTICE TO OHIO STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
                AND THEIR PARENTS OR GUARDIANS OF
           PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

     1. This notice may apply to you if you are the parent or
guardian of a student with disabilities age three through twenty-
one or a student with disabilities. The student must be enrolled
or seeking enrollment in Ohio's public school system and require
special education, related services, or accommodations as a
result of a disability.

     2. The purpose of this notice is to tell you about a
proposed partial settlement in a lawsuit that may affect you and
the student. The lawsuit was brought by people like you who want
children with disabilities to receive a free and appropriate
public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA).

                          The Lawsuit

     3. This lawsuit has two parts. The first is a challenge to
the way Ohio funds special education and related services. The
second is a challenge to the Ohio Department of Education's (ODE)
procedures for implementing the IDEA.

     4. The challenges to ODE's implementation of the IDEA raise
four matters. The first is the way ODE monitors local school
districts' and other agencies' compliance with the IDEA. The
second is the way ODE handles school districts' requests for
waivers of state standards controlling the delivery of special
education services. The third is the way ODE operates its system
for handling complaints about special education matters. The
fourth is the way ODE corrects school districts' failure to
comply with the IDEA.

     5. The people who brought the lawsuit (named plaintiffs)
were John Doe, by and through his parent, L.B.; T.M., by and
through his parent, S.J.; L.J., by and through his parent, J.J.;
T.D., by and through his parent, A.D.; L.A., by and through his
parent, E.A.; B.M., by and through his parent, D.M; S.W., by and
through his parent, C.S.; and M.G., by and through his parent,
J.G. Their attorneys are Susan G. Tobin and Jason C. Boylan of
the Ohio Legal Rights Service, an independent state advocacy
agency. The Judge in this case has decided that these eight
people and their attorneys will fairly represent all students who
require special education, related services, or accommodations as
a result of their disability, making this case a "class action."

     6. The plaintiffs sued the State of Ohio, state agencies and
commissions, and state officials responsible for ensuring the
delivery of special education and related services. The
defendants are the State of Ohio; Governor Ted Strickland; the
Ohio School Facilities Commission; State Superintendent of Public
Instruction Deborah Delisle; the State Board of Education; ODE;
the Office of Exceptional Children; and the Office of Early
Learning and School Readiness.

                          The Settlement

     7. After more than a year of negotiating, the parties have
agreed to a partial settlement of this case without a trial. That
settlement resolves the claims about the way that ODE implements
the IDEA. It does not settle the challenges to the way Ohio funds
the education of students with disabilities.

     8. The plaintiffs and defendants have written the agreement
in a document called a "Consent Order."  The Judge has given
preliminary approval of the Consent Order before it is final.
Before the Judge decides to give final approval of the Consent
Order, you can tell the Judge if you disagree with any part of
it.  To get a copy of the Consent Order you may write to the Ohio
Legal Rights Service, 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1400, Columbus,
Ohio 43215-5923, call 1-800-282-9181, or view it online at
http://www.olrs.ohio.gov/

     9. The Consent Order requires ODE to take a number of steps
to identify and correct violations of federal and state special
education statutes to ensure that class members receive a free
and appropriate public education. The Consent Order's provisions
include:

          a. Monitoring: ODE will be required to provide public
involvement and access to information regarding its IDEA
monitoring systems by requiring public posting of local school
districts' performance and holding open meetings where
individuals may present their concerns.

          b. Waivers: Waivers are requested by local school
districts when the district claims that it can not meet special
education service delivery ratios (such as class size, range of
students' ages in the same classroom, service provider to student
ratios), which are required by law. The Consent Order requires
protections for students with disabilities and additional ODE
oversight when a waiver is requested. Parents whose children with
disabilities may be affected by waivers will now be given notice
of requests for such waivers before the request for the waiver is
decided. Waivers cannot result in the denial of a free and
appropriate public education to affected students with
disabilities.

          c. Complaints: This Consent Order provides a number of
new measures to protect students with disabilities when a
parent/guardian files a state-level complaint with ODE. As a
result of the Consent Order, ODE will provide additional notice
to parents/guardians of the complaint process and advocacy
resources to assist parents/guardians. ODE will be required to
conduct a more thorough investigation of complaints challenging
the delivery of a child's free and appropriate public education,
a local school district's failure to implement due process
hearings or state level review decisions, and the inappropriate
use of restraint or seclusion. ODE will ensure that violations of
the law will be corrected in a timely manner. The Consent Order
does not change the procedures controlling due process hearings
before impartial hearing officers.

          d. Complaint Timelines: If only the school district
requests an extension of time for a decision by ODE and the
parent or guardian does not agree to the extension, ODE may only
grant the district's request in extraordinary circumstances. When
both the parent/guardian and the school district agree to enter
into mediation, the mediation will not delay the outcome of state
complaints and an extension of time will be granted only when
agreed to by both parties.

          e. Corrective Action: When a local school district
fails to meet state or federal standards, ODE will require that
the district correct those deficiencies within a year. The
district may be subject to penalties if it fails to correct the
deficiencies.

                  Effect of the Consent Order

     10. The Consent Order is a partial settlement between the
plaintiffs and defendants because it does not resolve plaintiffs'
claims about the way Ohio funds the education of students with
disabilities.  If this Consent Order is finally approved by the
Judge, plaintiffs' claims about the way Ohio funds the education
of students with disabilities remain unaffected.

     11. If ODE does not carry out the terms of the Consent
Order, the plaintiffs can enforce those terms for two years after
the Judge orders final approval. However, if this Consent Order
is finally approved by the Judge, the claims of this case that
are summarized in paragraph 9 of this notice may not be
relitigated.

     12. The plaintiffs and defendants agreed in the Consent
Order that plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs. The amount of those fees and expenses will be
determined later.

                             Next Steps

     13. If you agree with the Consent Order you do not have to
do anything, but you may submit comments to the Judge in the same
manner as described in paragraph 14 of this notice.

     14. If you disagree with any part of the Consent Order and
you want to tell the Judge, you must file written objections NO
LATER THAN OCTOBER 19, 2009.

          a. On the first page of your objections, write in large
or underlined letters: "OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSAL IN DOE v. STATE,
Case No. 2:91-cv-464."

          b. A parent or guardian may object on behalf of a child
class member, but must state in the objection the relationship
that he or she has with the affected child class member.

          c. You must sign your name, and include your address,
your phone number, and the date objections are mailed. You may or
may not be contacted by plaintiffs' or defendants' attorneys to
discuss your concerns.

          d. Objections must be mailed to the following address:
Clerk of Court United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio Joseph P. Kinneary U.S. Courthouse 85 Marconi
Boulevard Columbus, Ohio 43215 Attn: Judge Holschuh's Docket

          e. DO NOT CALL THE COURT. THE COURT WILL NOT ACCEPT
PHONE CALLS ABOUT THIS MATTER. YOU MUST SUBMIT YOUR OBJECTIONS IN
WRITING.

     15. A hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m. on October 20,
2009, before the Honorable John D. Holschuh, in Courtroom 3 of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, 85 Marconi Boulevard, Columbus, Ohio 43215. At the hearing,
the judge will consider whether the proposed partial settlement
is fair, reasonable, and adequate and whether is should receive
the court's final approval. The hearing is open to the public.
Person who have submitted timely objections may be given the
opportunity to speak at the hearing if they so desire. If you
desire to speak at the hearing, please note this on your
objection.

     16. Following the hearing, the Judge will decide whether to
approve the Consent Order and allow this part of the lawsuit to
end. If the Judge decides to approve the proposed Consent Order,
his decision is final and the Consent Order becomes effective and
lasts for 2 years.

     17. If you have any questions about this case you can call
Ohio Legal Rights Service, Intake Worker, 50 West Broad Street,
Suite 1400, Columbus, Ohio 43215-5923, at 1-800-282-9181 or (614)
466-7264. Please mention that you are calling about the case Doe
v. State of Ohio, Case No. 2:91-cv-464.


OHIO: Renewed Bid for Class Certification in Early Screening Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Legal Rights Service continues to press its lawsuit
against the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) in
the G.D. v. Lumpkin, Case No. 05-cv-980 (S.D. Ohio).  OLRS
alleges that the state has failed to inform, failed to provide
access to the necessary services and has failed to provide the
necessary services within a reasonable time frame to children and
families under Ohio's Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and
Treatment (EPSDT) program.  OLRS has renewed its Motion for Class
Certification and awaits a decision by the Hon. Judge Holschuh.  
Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc. (ABLE) has moved to join
the suit on behalf of several additional children and their
families.  Depositions and the exchange of discovery continue.  A
trial date for this case is expected in mid-2010.  

Additional information about the case is available at
http://www.olrs.ohio.gov/asp/EPSDT.asp

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kristin E. Hildebrant, Esq.
          Winnifred N. Weeks, Esq.
          OHIO LEGAL RIGHTS SERVICE
          50 W. Broad Street, Suite 1400
          Columbus, Ohio 43215
          Telephone: (614) 466-7264
          Fax: (614) 644-1888

               - and -  

          Robert A. Cole, Esq.
          W. David Koeninger, Esq.
          ADVOCATES FOR BASIC LEGAL EQUALITY, INC.
          CENTER FOR EQUAL JUSTICE
          525 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300
          Toledo, OH 43604-1373
          Telephone: (419) 255-0814
          Fax: (419) 259-2880


REED'S REFORESTATION: 300 Guatemalans Allege Forced Labor
---------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that
Reed's Reforestation lured more than 300 Guatemalans to the
United States with false promises, then confiscated their
passports, put them to forced labor in squalid conditions for
less than minimum wage, threatened them and took illegal
deductions from their pay, according to a federal class action.

Walter Reed, who owned the company, died on July 28. The workers
demand compensatory and punitive damages from Reed's
Reforestation and Reed's Forestry, which operate in three
Southern states.

Lead plaintiffs Doroteo Gomez-Argueta and Reynaldo Vasquez-Gomez
say Reed threatened them with deportation if they tried to quit
and told them they would never be able to work in the United
States again if they refused to do the forced labor.

Reed secured legal visas for approximately 307 guest workers,
then violated state and federal wage and labor laws by, among
other things, taking "illegal deductions" for recruitment,
processing, visa and transportation, according to the complaint.

The workers say they were denied basic sleeping arrangements,
kitchen facilities, basic sanitation, toilets, potable water and
hand-washing facilities. They demand damages for forced labor,
human trafficking, and violations of the Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Gomez-Argueta, et al. v. The Estate of
William Reed dba Reed's Reforestation adba Reed's Forestry, Case
No. 09-cv-02027 (N.D. Ala.) (Proctor, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/12/ForcedLabor.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Caitlin Berberic, Esq.
          Stacie Jonas, Esq.
          Douglas L. Stevick, Esq.
          SOUTHERN MIGRANT LEGAL SERVICES
          311 Plus Park Blvd., Suite 135
          Nashville, TN 37217
          Telephone: 615-750-1200


ROGERS INT'L: Consolidated Amended "Lane" Suit Nixed in June
------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated amended derivative and class-action complaint
Steven L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane against Rogers International
Raw Materials Fund, L.P., was dismissed in June 2009.

Beeland Management Company L.L.C., Walter Thomas Price III,
Allen D. Goodman, and James Beeland Rogers Jr. have been named
as defendants, and Rogers International as a nominal defendant,
in a class-action and derivative action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Steven
L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane, as Trustees of the Lane Family Trust
dated April 10, 2001.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to Rogers International in terms of management
and were negligent in connection with the transfer of Rogers
International assets to Refco Capital Markets.  The suit seeks
judgment for damages in an unspecified amount, costs and
attorneys' fees and class certification of Rogers
International's limited partners.

Following the defendants' motion to dismiss the case, the Lanes
voluntarily withdrew their complaint from federal court and
filed a similar complaint in the Law Division of the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois.  Walter Thomas Price was not
named as a defendant in the state court complaint.

The defendants successfully moved to have the case reassigned to
the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.  The defendants also filed a motion to stay the Lanes'
suit in light of a related case pending in the Southern District
of New York.

On March 1, 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs certain
discovery related to personal jurisdiction over defendant James
Rogers in the matter.  This personal jurisdiction dispute
between the plaintiffs and defendant Rogers is still ongoing.

On June 1, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
derivative and class action complaint.  The amended complaint
adds Connie M. Watkins and John V. Watkins as plaintiffs.

All defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  The
court has entered a briefing schedule on these motions which
shall be completed by Dec. 4, 2008.

Oral argument on the motions was held May 7, 2009.

On June 16, 2009, the court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, but held that
it had personal jurisdiction over Rogers.  Plaintiffs did not
appeal, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. is an Illinois
limited partnership that was established in May 2000.  It trades
a portfolio of commodity futures and forward contracts,
principally on recognized exchanges.  The Company's General
Partner and commodity pool operator is Beeland Management
Company, L.L.C.


ROGERS INT'L: "Watkins" Suit in New York Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. (Partnership)
continues to face a class and derivative action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according
to the company's Aug. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2009.

Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., Walter Thomas Price III,
James Beeland Rogers, Jr., Robert Mercorella and Allen Goodman
have been named as defendants, and the Partnership as a nominal
defendant in a lawsuit filed by Connie M. Watkins and John V.
Watkins.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary obligations to the Partnership in causing or allowing
the transfer of Partnership assets to Refco Capital Markets.

The Watkinses seek judgment and other relief declaring the
defendants responsible for the loss of any Partnership assets,
or, alternatively, compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount, the plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' fees and other
relief.

Following several status hearings, the Court set April 2, 2007,
for the Watkinses to file any further amendments to their
complaint, and May 15, 2007 for the defendants to respond.

On April 9, 2007, the case was stayed at the Watkinses' request
pending the resolution of personal jurisdiction issues in a
similar case filed by Steven L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane, as
Trustees of the Lane Family Trust, in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois.

                         The Lane Case

The Lanes filed a class-action and derivative action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the Partnership in the management of the
Partnership and were negligent in connection with the transfer
of Partnership assets to Refco Capital Markets and seeks
judgment for damages in an unspecified amount, costs and
attorneys' fees and class certification of the Partnership's
limited partners.

Following the defendants' motion to dismiss, the Lanes
voluntarily withdrew their complaint from federal court and
filed a similar complaint in the Law Division of the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois.

The Defendants also filed a motion to stay the Lanes' suit in
light of the Watkinses' case pending in the Southern District of
New York.

On March 1, 2007, the Court granted the Lanes certain discovery
related to personal jurisdiction over defendant James Rogers.

On May 4, 2007, the Court granted the Lanes leave to file an
amended complaint.  A status hearing is scheduled for Aug. 8,
2007.

The Watkins matter is stayed pending the resolution of personal
jurisdiction issues in the Lane case.

The plaintiffs, Connie M. Watkins and John V. Watkins, joined the
Lane plaintiffs in the nearly identical Illinois state court
action, and that action was dismissed, according to the company's
Aug. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.  

Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. is an Illinois
limited partnership that was established in May 2000.  It trades
a portfolio of commodity futures and forward contracts,
principally on recognized exchanges.  The Company's General
Partner and commodity pool operator is Beeland Management
Company, L.L.C.

STANFORD FINANCIAL: Chadbourne & Park Named as a Defendants
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel at The Am Law Litigation Daily reports that until
2006, Thomas Sjoblom, Esq. -- the Proskauer Rose partner caught
up in the $7 billion collapse of Stanford Financial Group -- was
a partner at Chadbourne & Par, and on Monday, according to Leigh
Jones at the National Law Journal, investors who lost money in
the Stanford fraud added Chadbourne as a defendant to a class
action against Mr. Sjoblom and Proskauer that they filed in
Dallas federal district court in August.

The amended complaint, Ms. Jones reports, alleges that Mr.
Sjoblom participated in the Stanford fraud while he worked at
both Chadbourne and Proskauer.  As the NLJ has previously
reported, the investors' suit relies on disclosures by former
Stanford CFO James Davis, who appeared to implicate Mr. Sjoblom
in a conspiracy to thwart an Securities and Exchange Commission
investigation when he pled guilty to fraud and conspiracy last
summer.

The National Law Journal is also reporting that Mr. Sjoblom, who
worked at the SEC for 20 years before joining Chadbourne, has
withdrawn from Proskauer.  The firm previously called the
investors' class action "legally flawed and factually erroneous,"
saying in a statement, "There is no basis whatsoever for any
claim that Proskauer, which functioned as defense counsel in a
regulatory investigation, bears any responsibility for the fraud
allegedly inflicted upon investors."

Chadbourne declined the NLJ's request for comment.  The class
action, in which the investors are represented by Edward Snyder,
Esq., and Jesse Castillo, Esq., at Castillo Snyder, also names P.
Mauricio Alvarado, the former general counsel of Stanford
Financial Group, as a defendant.  The case docket does not list
counsel for any of the defendants, Ms. Frankel reports.


T-MOBILE: Class Action Lawyer Competition Promotes Justice
----------------------------------------------------------
Upholding free market principles, Steve Korris at the St. Clair
Record reports, U.S. District Judge Jose Linares ruled that
competition among class action lawyers promotes justice.

In a Sept. 10 order he blessed "reverse auctions," where
defendants drive settlement costs down by bargaining with
different lawyers in different courts.

He rejected a bid from lawyers in California litigation against
telephone company T-Mobile for 80 percent of fees from a
settlement T-Mobile reached with other lawyers in his court.

He slashed the 80 percent request of the Bursor and Plutzik firms
to 16 percent, California's share of the settlement, awarding
them $720,000 from a $4.5 million fee.

He warned that granting the most credit for a settlement to the
lawyer who sued first would wreak havoc on class action practice.

He wrote that an 80 percent claim would act as a disincentive
against new suits.

"In the end, T-Mobile would be forced to settle with the Bursor
and Plutzik groups or not at all," he wrote.

"In fact, adopting the Bursor and Plutzik groups' position in
this case would ostensibly allow them to prevent attorneys from
filing related actions in different jurisdictions altogether," he
wrote.

"This argument is as aggressive as it is untenable," he wrote.

Judge Linares approved a February settlement of claims that
T-Mobile improperly charged $200 fees for early terminations of
service contracts.

T-Mobile agreed to pay the class $13.5 million, plus a third of
that to lawyers.

Judge Linares awarded 84 percent of the fee, $3,780,000, to those
who settled in his court.

He blistered one of them, Paul Weiss of Chicago, who for the past
10 years has pursued class actions in Madison County among other
courts.

Judge Linares rejected all expenses Weiss claimed, more than
$40,000.

He declared Weiss's statement of hours "facially untenable."

Judge Linares wrote, "He claims to have taken primary
responsibility for the uploading and reviewing of over 140,000
documents produced by T-Mobile after preliminary approval of the
settlement."

Weiss counted hours from other cases where, Judge Linares wrote,
"nothing has taken place."

In a similar case involving Weiss and associates, Judge Linares
granted preliminary approval last year to a settlement of early
termination claims against Sprint.

A motion for final approval in that case remains pending.




TREASURE RESORT: Sued by Singapore Resort Club Members
------------------------------------------------------
Cheow Xin Yi and Rachel Kelly at Channel NewsAsia report from
Singapore that 205 members of the former Sijori Resort Club on
Sentosa have filed a class action lawsuit against the new owners
of the club for breach of contract.

A writ was filed in the High Court on Monday against Treasure
Resort Pte Ltd and its sister company Colony Members Service Club
Pte Ltd -- both subsidiaries of Maxz Universal Development Group
Pte Ltd. according to Joyce Hooi at The Business Times -- by
seven plaintiffs representing the members.

They are alleging that Treasure Resort renounced its obligations
under the membership agreement when it bought over the club,
Channel NewsAsia says.  According to Ms. Hooi, the writ of
summons asserts that the transfer agreement between Sijori and
Treasure Resort, the latter agreed to maintain various membership
privileges provided to club members.  Among the privileges
promised were complimentary room vouchers for three nights
annually, special discounts for room stay, food and beverage and
karaoke, and free use of swimming pool and gymnasium.  In
February last year, however, Treasure Resort terminated its
agreement with the members and told them they would have to enter
into a new membership agreement with its associate company,
Colony Members Service Club.  Having paid between $20,000 and
$30,000 in entrance fees when they first joined, the members saw
red when Colony hoisted the monthly subscription fees 5.5 times,
from $30 to $165 for individuals and $50 to $275 for family
memberships.

Treasure Resort and Colony Members, Channel NewsAsia says, drew
up a new agreement with changes including a massive hike in
monthly subscription payments of more than five times the
original amount.

The members also claim that they have been denied membership
privileges since Treasure Resort took over as club owner in 2006.

Efforts by MediaCorp to contact Treasure Resort were
unsuccessful.


VISA INC: Modified Prepayment Terms Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
The modified payment obligations under a settlement agreement
between Visa U.S.A. Inc., a principal operating subsidiary of
Visa Inc., and plaintiffs in an antitrust class action lawsuit
was approved on October _, 2009.

Visa U.S.A. Inc., a principal operating subsidiary of Visa Inc.,
entered into an agreement on Aug. 31, 2009, to modify its payment
obligations under a settlement agreement, dated as of June 4,
2003, with plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit challenging
certain aspects of the payment card industry under U.S. federal
antitrust law.

On Oct. 2, 2009, the court in the class action lawsuit entered a
final order approving the Prepayment Agreement.

According to the company's Form 8-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated Oct. 6, 2009, as a
result, and, consistent with previous disclosure and pursuant to
the terms of the Prepayment Agreement, the Company made a
prepayment of its remaining $800 million in payment obligations
at a discounted amount of $682 million on Oct. 5, 2009.

Visa, Inc. -- http://www.corporate.visa.com/-- is a retail
electronic payments network.  The company facilitates global
commerce through the transfer of value and information among
financial institutions, merchants, consumers, businesses and
government entities.  Its primary customers are financial
institutions, for which it provides processing services and
payment product platforms, including platforms for consumer
credit, debit, prepaid and commercial payments.  The company has
three business operations: transaction processing services,
product platforms and payments network management.


VIVENDI SA: Sues French Plaintiffs in S.D.N.Y. Case in Paris
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Campbell at Bloomberg News reports that Vivendi SA sued
two investors and a shareholder rights group in a Paris court
over their participation in In re Vivendi Universal, S.A.,
Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-cv-5571 (S.D.N.Y.) (Holwell,
J.).

The Paris-based owner of the world's largest music company
argues that Olivier Gerard and Gerard Morel, and the Association
for the Defense of Minority Shareholders, or Adam, should take
any legal action against Vivendi in France rather than New York,
Vivendi's lawyer said.

Vivendi is fighting a lawsuit in New York over whether its former
Chief Executive Officer Jean-Marie Messier misled investors
with upbeat statements about the company's financial health
between 2000 and 2002.  Class action lawsuits are not permitted
in France, Mr. Campbell relates.  

"Our position is that French shareholders who bought their shares
in France, on the Paris bourse, on the basis of information
distributed by Vivendi in France, and under the control of the
French market regulator, have recourse in France," Herve Pisani,
a lawyer for Vivendi, told Mr. Campbell.  Concerned investors
should therefore pursue claims against Vivendi in French courts,
Mr. Pisani added.

The suit in Paris names Messrs. Gerard and Morel as the "French
representatives" in the class action, and describes Adam, the
investor group, as its "initiator and organizer."  About two-
thirds of the parties to the class action are French, Vivendi
spokesman Antoine Lefort tells Mr. Campbell.  

                          "Scandalous"

Vivendi's position is "absolutely scandalous," Colette Neuville,
president of Adam, told Mr. Campbell.  "They want to have the
advantages of double listing, which permits them to sell their
shares to raise more capital, and at the same time, they refuse
the inconveniences."  Vivendi is listed in Paris and New York.

Adam says French rules should be changed to allow class
action suits, which let large groups of plaintiffs participate
in the same case.

Vivendi, which initially asked for 1 million euros ($1.48
million) in damages from the defendants named in its complaint,
will reduce its claim to 1,000 euros because the company is
interested in the legal principle, "not a question of money," Mr.
Lefort said.

The plaintiffs in the U.S. suit say Vivendi lied about its
revenue and earnings by falsely claiming it was generating
enough cash and earnings to meet its obligations on $21 billion
in debt.  Detailed coverage about the shareholder lawsuit pending
in New York appeared in the Thurs., Oct. 8, 2009, edition of the
Class Action Reporter.  

Vivendi's case will be argued on Nov. 25 in Paris, Mr. Campbell
relates.


XFONE INC: Fleisig's Damages Suit for Billed Attempts Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action suit styled Omer Fleisig vs. Israel 10 - Shidury
Haruts Hahadash Ltd. and Xfone 018 Ltd., remains
pending.

On Dec. 16, 2008, Omer Fleisig filed a request to approve a
claim as a class-action against Xfone 018 Ltd., a 69% owned
Israel based subsidiary of Xfone, Inc., and Israel 10 - Shidury
Haruts Hahadash Ltd., an entity unrelated to the company, in the
District Court in Petach Tikva, Israel.

Fleisig attempted to participate in a television call-in game
show, which was produced by Israel 10, using Xfone 018's
international telecom services.

The claim alleges that although Fleisig's two attempts to
participate in the show were unsuccessful because he received a
busy signal when trying to call in, he was billed by Xfone 018
for both attempts.  Fleisig seeks damages for the billed
attempts.  He was billed approximately $2.50 for the calls. The
Class Action Request states total damages of NIS 24,750,000
(approximately $5,856,602) which reflects Fleisig's estimation
of damages caused to all participants in the game show which
(pursuant to the Class Action Request) allegedly received a busy
signal while trying to call in to the game during a certain
period defined in the Class Action Request.

All parties are attempting to reach an understanding regarding
the scope of the Class Action Request and its justification, if
at all, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Xfone, Inc. -- http://www.xfone.com/-- is a holding and
managing company providing international voice, video, and data
communications services with operations in the United States,
the United Kingdom, and Israel offering a range of services,
which includes local, long distance and international telephony
services; video; prepaid and postpaid calling cards; cellular
services; Internet services; messaging services (Email/Fax
Broadcast, Email2Fax and Cyber-Number); and reselling
opportunities.  The divisions of the company include Partner
Division, Customer Service Division, Operations Division,
Administration Division, Research and Development Division and
Marketing Division.


* William Athanas, Esq., Joins Waller Lansden in Birmingham
-----------------------------------------------------------
Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP, a full-service law firm with
more than 200 attorneys, has added seasoned federal prosecutor
William Athanas, Esq., as Of Counsel to the firm's Birmingham,
Ala., office.  Mr. Athanas joins Waller Lansden's trial and
appellate practice after nearly eight years prosecuting federal
criminal matters.  As an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern
District of Alabama, Mr. Athanas headed up numerous complex grand
jury investigations and prosecutions in the areas of economic
crime and public corruption, and successfully tried several high-
profile cases including one of the lengthiest and most complex
bank fraud trials ever conducted in the Northern District of
Alabama.  At Waller Lansden, Mr. Athanas will provide counseling
and representation to clients around the United States and abroad
on all aspects of corporate criminal defense, governance, and
regulatory matters, including Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
matters, internal investigations, white collar defense, and
complex litigation issues related to healthcare, securities, and
financial institutions.

"Bill is a talented attorney with an impressive, successful trial
record in difficult high-profile cases," said John Tishler,
chairman of Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP.  "His experience
at the federal level will be an invaluable asset to our clients-
he strengthens our already stellar trial and appellate practice,
which is one of the cornerstones of our firm."

Mr. Athanas will reside in the firm's Birmingham office, which is
headed by Larry Childs, Esq., a partner with more than 30 years'
experience in complex litigation matters.  "We are excited to
welcome Bill to Waller Lansden and specifically to our Birmingham
office.  Bill will provide much-needed reinforcement for our busy
practice, which includes complex litigation and the defense of
class action lawsuits and shareholder derivative suits against
financial institutions," Mr. Childs noted.

Within Waller Lansden's Trial and Appellate Practice, Mr. Athanas
will become a member of its Government Investigations and White
Collar Criminal Defense subgroup.  That subgroup is headed by
Sheila Sawyer, Esq., a partner based in the firm's Nashville
office who also has substantial prosecutorial experience, having
spent nine years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Boston.  The
group also includes Paul Summers, Esq., who previously served as
the Attorney General of the State of Tennessee and as a Judge on
the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

Prior to joining Waller Lansden earlier this month, Mr. Athanas
served as a federal prosecutor with the United States Department
of Justice for nearly eight years, first as a Trial Attorney with
the Criminal Division's Fraud Section in Washington, D.C, and
then as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of
Alabama.  During that service, he acquired a wealth of federal
litigation experience, heading up numerous complex grand jury
investigations and prosecutions in the areas of economic crime
and public corruption, and successfully trying several high-
profile cases.  Mr. Athanas' successful trial experience included
the public corruption convictions of a former state senator and
representative; the tax fraud conviction of the pastor of a 3,000
member church; and the bank fraud convictions of five individuals
charged with perpetrating an elaborate scheme to defraud the now-
defunct Community Bank out of over $1.7 million.  Mr. Athanas
also successfully prosecuted an armed carjacker who abducted and
assaulted a Birmingham attorney in 2006, securing a sentence of
life imprisonment after trial. Prior to his service as a federal
prosecutor, Mr. Athanas was engaged in the private practice of
law in Boston, where he represented clients in civil and criminal
health care matters, white collar criminal defense, and complex
commercial litigation.  Mr. Athanas received his Juris Doctor,
cum laude, from Suffolk University Law School in Boston, and his
undergraduate degree from the University of New Hampshire in
Durham, N.H.

                       About Waller Lansden

With more than 200 attorneys, Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP
-- http://www.wallerlaw.com/-- assists Fortune 500 clients and  
other businesses and individuals throughout the United States,
Europe, and Asia in a wide range of transactional, regulatory and
litigation matters. Recognized as one of the nation's largest and
most experienced healthcare law firms, Waller Lansden is also
proud to be considered a trusted advisor to leading companies
involved in financial services, manufacturing, transportation,
retail, real estate development, and other industries.
Headquartered in Nashville, Tenn., Waller Lansden provides
counsel in mergers and acquisitions, securities and commercial
finance transactions, regulatory compliance; commercial
litigation; real estate transactions; environmental issues;
intellectual property; labor and employment; and tax.



                            *********

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  * * *