CAR_Public/091022.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 22, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 209
  
                            Headlines

CENTERLINE HOLDING: S.D.N.Y Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
CENTERLINE HOLDING: Still Awaiting Court Ruling on "Off" Suit
CENTERLINE HOLDING: Trustees Defer Decision on Demand Letter
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Okays Summary Judgment in Randall Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Williams Suit Settled for $440,000

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Face Drenckhahn Suit in Calif.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Discovery Still Ongoing in Castaneda Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Has Yet to Be Served Pytelewski Complaint
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Certification in Ward Suit Still Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Still Awaits Decision in Ellis Suit

DEERE & CO: Prevails in S.D. Iowa Retiree Health Benefits Lawsuit
GATEWAY INC: C.D. Calif. Suit Complains About Computer Warranties
HILLENBRAND INC: Fifth Circuit Denies FCA's Reconsideration Plea
MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Appeal of Bateman Certification Ruling Pending
MDL 2036: Checking Account Overdraft Suits Sent to S.D. Fla.

MURPHY OIL: 5th Cir. Revives Katrina Victims' Global Warming Suit
NEW YORK THRUWAY: Inequitable Grand Island Toll Case Reinstated
NEWS CORP: No Trial Date Yet for Consolidated "Brown" Suit
NOVARTIS AG: U.S. Labor Dept. Says Salespeople Are Employees
TARGET CORP: Accused of Mislabeling Organic Food Products

WD-40 COMPANY: 9th Cir. Remands Drimmer Suit to S.D. Calif.

                            *********
      
CENTERLINE HOLDING: S.D.N.Y Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin has dismissed the amended
consolidated complaint in In re Centerline Holding Company
Securities Litigation, Case No. 08 CV 00505 (S.D.N.Y.), according
to the company's Aug. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009.

On Jan. 18, 2008, the first of the federal securities putative
class actions was filed against the company and certain of its
officers and trustees.  Thereafter, five other, essentially
duplicative putative class actions were also filed in the same
court.

The complaint in each case asserted that the company and other
defendants allegedly violated federal securities law by failing
to disclose in a timely fashion its December 2007 transaction
with Freddie Mac.

On May 5, 2008, the Court designated Centerline Investor Group,
which is made up of several shareholders, as lead plaintiff for
these cases.  Pursuant to the Court's stipulation and order dated
March 3, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
on July 7, 2008 in this action.

The consolidated complaint also alleges violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the company's announcement of
the Freddie Mac transaction, changes to the company's business
model, and the reduction in dividend guidance policy, and seeks
an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other relief on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock
of Centerline Holding Company during the period March 12, 2007
through December 28, 2007.

The defendants in this action filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on Oct. 27, 2008 and the motion was
granted by Judge Scheindlin on Jan. 12, 2009.

Judge Scheindlin granted the plaintiff leave to replead, and the
plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on March 13,
2009.  On April 30, 2009, the Defendants in this case filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint.  The lead
Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss
on June 12, 2009 and the Defendants filed their reply to the
opposition motion filed by the Plaintiffs on June 30, 2009.

On Aug. 4, 2009 the Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted and
the case was dismissed without leave for the plaintiff to
replead.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW, LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700
          Fax: 212-818-0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com

               - and -

          James Clayton Kelly, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-451-9635
          Fax: 212-486-2093
          E-mail: jkelly@wolfpopper.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Jennifer Fletcher Beltrami, Esq.
          WOLF BLOCK SCHORR AND SOLIS-COHEN, LLP
          250 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10177
          Phone: 212-883-4955
          Fax: 212-672-1155
          E-mail: jbeltrami@wolfblock.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Leffell, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-373-3218
          Fax: 212-492-0218
          E-mail: dleffell@paulweiss.com


CENTERLINE HOLDING: Still Awaiting Court Ruling on "Off" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Centerline Holding Co. still awaits the decision of the Delaware
Court of Chancery on the settlement in a putative class and
derivative action lawsuit, according to the company's Aug. 12,
2009, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

On Jan. 15, 2008, the first of the state law cases, a putative
class and derivative action, entitled Off v. Ross, CA No. 3468-
VCP, was filed against the company, its Board of Trustees and
TRCLP.  The lawsuit concerns the company's sale of a new issue of
convertible preferred stock to an affiliate of TRCLP.

The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
the Trustees and seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages from them as well as injunctive relief against all
defendants.  Thereafter, seven other derivative lawsuits
asserting the same or similar claims were filed in state and
federal courts in New York and in the Delaware Chancery Court.  

Four of these later-filed actions also allege that the trustees
breached their fiduciary duties to the company by allegedly
violating the federal securities laws.  The company is named
solely as a nominal defendant in all eight derivative actions and
no monetary relief is sought against the company in any of those
cases.  The seven derivative actions filed subsequent to the Off
case are:

     1. On Jan. 18, 2008, Kramer v. Ross, et al., Index.
        No. 100861-08, was filed against the company and its
        board of trustees, in New York County Supreme Court;

     2. On Jan. 25, 2008, Carfagno v. Schnitzer, et al.,
        No. 08 CV 00912, was filed against the company and its
        board of trustees in the U.S. District Court
        for the Southern District of New York;

     3. On Jan. 30, 2008, Ciszerk v. Ross, et al., CA No. 3511,
        was filed against the company, its board of trustees and
        The Related Companies, L.P. in the Delaware Court of
        Chancery;

     4. On Feb. 22, 2008, Kanter v. Ross, et al., 08 Civ. 01827,
        was filed against the company, its board of trustees and
        The Related Companies, L.P. in the United States
        District Court for the Southern District of New York;

     5. On Feb. 27, 2008, Broy v. Centerline Holding Company
        et al., No. 08 CV 01971, was filed against the company
        and certain of its officers and trustees in the United
        States District Court for the Southern District of New
        York;

     6. On April 10, 2008, Kastner v. Schnitzer et al, Index
        No. 601043-08, was filed against the company and its
        board of trustees, in New York Supreme Court; and

     7. On April 10, 2008, Kostecka v. Schnitzer et al, Index
        No. 601044-08, was filed against the company and its
        board of trustees, in New York Supreme Court.

On April 28, 2008, a consolidated amended verified complaint
alleging breaches of fiduciary duties of loyalty, candor, due
care, fair dealing, waste of corporate assets and unjust
enrichment, was filed against the company and its board of
trustees in Carfagno v. Schnitzer et al., 08 CV 912 (SAS) and
Broy v. Blau, 08 CV 1971 (SAS), pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The action is styled both as a derivative suit and as a class
action on behalf of all holders of Centerline securities who
qualified to purchase our 11.0% Preferred Shares pursuant to the
rights offering but who did not do so.

In late March 2009, the plaintiffs and defendants reached a basis
of settlement which would require a reduction in the rate payable
on the 11.0% Convertible Preferred Shares held by TRCLP and its
affiliates to 9.5% and an increase in the conversion price from
$10.75 to $12.35.

A Stipulation of Settlement was filed with the U.S. District
Court (SDNY) on April 8, 2009 and a fairness hearing for approval
of the settlement was held May 18, 2009.  At that time the
District Court entered a Final Judgment approving the Settlement,
which will become effective once the Delaware Court of Chancery
dismisses the Off and Ciszerk matters with prejudice.

A settlement with the plaintiff in the Off case based on the
rights offering was negotiated, but on Nov. 26, 2008, the
Delaware Court of Chancery rejected the settlement and stayed any
further proceedings in the action, pending resolution of the
Carfagno case.

As a result, several of the other derivative lawsuits that had
been voluntarily stayed by the plaintiffs, including the Kramer,
Ciszerk and Kanter actions are now subject to various
stipulations deferring further activity in those actions until a
final decision on the Stipulation of Settlement in Carfagno or,
in the case of Kastner and Kostecka, pending further activity in
the consolidated securities class action.

The Carfagno Stipulation of Settlement is contingent upon the
dismissal with prejudice of the overlapping Off and Ciszerk
actions pending before the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On May 28, 2009 the defendants filed a motion for dismissal of
the Off and Ciszerk matters in the Delaware Court of Chancery
based upon the approved Stipulation of Settlement in Carfagno and
the principle of res judicata.   The defendants are awaiting the
decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Centerline Holding Co. -- http://www.centerline.com/-- formerly
CharterMac, is an alternative asset manager focused on real
estate funds and financing.  The Company had $11.9 billion of
assets under management as of Dec. 31, 2007.  Organized as a
statutory trust, the Company conducts substantially all of its
business through its subsidiaries generally under the
designation Centerline Capital Group.  The Company operates in
four groups: Affordable Housing, Commercial Real Estate,
Portfolio Management and Credit Risk Products.  The Affordable
Housing and Commercial Real Estate groups raise capital through
a series of funds to deploy into an array of real estate debt
and equity investments. The Portfolio Management group monitors
and services the investments within its funds and servicing
portfolio.  The Credit Risk Products group provides credit
support to affordable housing debt and equity products investing
in syndicated corporate debt.


CENTERLINE HOLDING: Trustees Defer Decision on Demand Letter
------------------------------------------------------------
Outside members of Centerline Holding Co.'s Board of Trustees
have received a letter from one of its purported shareholders
demanding that they investigate potential claims against the
companies officers and others arising out of the allegations
asserted in the federal securities litigation.

The independent Trustees determined, at their meeting on March
11, 2009, to defer further consideration of the letter until
after the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York had decided the motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated
Complaint Carfagno v. Schnitzer et al., 08 CV 912 (SAS) and Broy
v. Blau, 08 CV 1971 (SAS).

Centerline Holding Co. -- http://www.centerline.com/-- formerly
CharterMac, is an alternative asset manager focused on real
estate funds and financing.  The Company had $11.9 billion of
assets under management as of Dec. 31, 2007.  Organized as a
statutory trust, the Company conducts substantially all of its
business through its subsidiaries generally under the
designation Centerline Capital Group.  The Company operates in
four groups: Affordable Housing, Commercial Real Estate,
Portfolio Management and Credit Risk Products.  The Affordable
Housing and Commercial Real Estate groups raise capital through
a series of funds to deploy into an array of real estate debt
and equity investments. The Portfolio Management group monitors
and services the investments within its funds and servicing
portfolio.  The Credit Risk Products group provides credit
support to affordable housing debt and equity products investing
in syndicated corporate debt.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Okays Summary Judgment in Randall Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, on Oct. 2,
2009, granted Costco Wholesale Corp.'s motion for summary
judgment in the class action styled Greg Randall v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles,
Case No. BC-296369.

The case was purportedly brought as class actions on behalf of
certain present and former Costco managers in California, in
which plaintiffs principally allege that they have not been
properly compensated for overtime work, according to the
company's Oct. 16, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug.
30, 2009.

On Feb. 21, 2008 the court in Randall tentatively granted in part
and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification.   
That order was finalized by the court on May 13, 2008.  The
parties in Randall have agreed on a partial settlement of the
action (resolving all claims except for the miscalculation
claim), requiring a payment of up to $16 by the company, which
was reserved for in 2008.  The Court granted final approval of
the settlement on June 22, 2009.  Settlement distribution is
underway.

The miscalculation claim from the Randall case was refiled as a
separate action by stipulation, alleging that the company
miscalculated the rates of pay for all department and ancillary
managers in California in violation of Labor Code Section 515(d).

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.  The company's depots receive container-based
shipments from manufacturers and reallocate these goods for
shipment to its individual warehouses, generally in less than 24
hours.  The company's warehouse format averages approximately
140,000 square feet.  Its warehouses operate on a seven-day, 69-
hour week.  It carries an average of approximately 4,000 active
stockkeeping units per warehouse in its core warehouse business.  
Many consumable products are offered for sale in case, carton or
multiple-pack quantities only.  As of Aug. 31, 2008, Costco
operated 512 membership warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Williams Suit Settled for $440,000
----------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. and plaintiffs in a purported class action
suit achieved a settlement in principle for a gross amount of
$440,000.  Any settlement however will still be subject to
approval from U.S. District Court (San Diego), according to the
company's Oct. 16, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug.
30, 2009.

The case was purportedly brought as class actions on behalf of
certain present and former Costco managers in California, in
which plaintiffs principally allege that they have not been
properly compensated for overtime work.  Scott M. Williams v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., U.S. District Court (San Diego), Case No.
02-CV-2003 NAJ (JFS).

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.  The company's depots receive container-based
shipments from manufacturers and reallocate these goods for
shipment to its individual warehouses, generally in less than 24
hours.  The company's warehouse format averages approximately
140,000 square feet.  Its warehouses operate on a seven-day, 69-
hour week.  It carries an average of approximately 4,000 active
stockkeeping units per warehouse in its core warehouse business.  
Many consumable products are offered for sale in case, carton or
multiple-pack quantities only.  As of Aug. 31, 2008, Costco
operated 512 membership warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Face Drenckhahn Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class certification motion by the plainiff's in a putative
class action suit filed against Costco Wholesale Corp. remains
pending, according to the company's Oct. 16, 2009, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Aug. 30, 2009.

The suit was filed on Dec. 26, 2007 principally alleging denial
of overtime compensation (Jesse Drenckhahn v. Costco Wholesale
Corp., U.S. District Court (Los Angeles), Case No. CV08-1408 FMC
(JMJ)).  The complaint alleges misclassification of certain
California managers.

On March 6, 2008, Costco filed a motion to dismiss.  On May 15,
2008, the court partially granted the motion, dismissing certain
claims and refusing to expand the statute of limitations for the
remaining claims.

An answer to the complaint was filed on May 27, 2008.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.  The company's depots receive container-based
shipments from manufacturers and reallocate these goods for
shipment to its individual warehouses, generally in less than 24
hours.  The company's warehouse format averages approximately
140,000 square feet.  Its warehouses operate on a seven-day, 69-
hour week.  It carries an average of approximately 4,000 active
stockkeeping units per warehouse in its core warehouse business.  
Many consumable products are offered for sale in case, carton or
multiple-pack quantities only.  As of Aug. 31, 2008, Costco
operated 512 membership warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Discovery Still Ongoing in Castaneda Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in a purported class action styled
Anthony Castaneda v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court for
the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC-399302.

The case was purportedly brought as a class action on behalf of
present and former hourly employees in California, in which the
plaintiff principally alleges that the Company's routine closing
procedures and security checks cause employees to incur delays
that qualify as uncompensated working time and that effectively
deny them statutorily guaranteed meal periods and rest breaks.
The complaint was filed on Oct. 2, 2008, and its motion to
dismiss was partially granted, according to the company's Oct.
16, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 30, 2009.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.  The company's depots receive container-based
shipments from manufacturers and reallocate these goods for
shipment to its individual warehouses, generally in less than 24
hours.  The company's warehouse format averages approximately
140,000 square feet.  Its warehouses operate on a seven-day, 69-
hour week.  It carries an average of approximately 4,000 active
stockkeeping units per warehouse in its core warehouse business.  
Many consumable products are offered for sale in case, carton or
multiple-pack quantities only.  As of Aug. 31, 2008, Costco
operated 512 membership warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Has Yet to Be Served Pytelewski Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp has yet to be served the complaint styled
Mary Pytelewski v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court for the
County of San Diego, Case No. 37-2009-00089654.

The purported class action was filed on May 15, 2009, on behalf
of present and former hourly employees in California, claiming
denial of wages and false imprisonment during the post-closing
jewelry and till "pull," when security measures allegedly cause
employees to be locked in the warehouses.  This complaint has not
yet been served on the company, according to its Oct. 16, 2009,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Aug. 30, 2009.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.  The company's depots receive container-based
shipments from manufacturers and reallocate these goods for
shipment to its individual warehouses, generally in less than 24
hours.  The company's warehouse format averages approximately
140,000 square feet.  Its warehouses operate on a seven-day, 69-
hour week.  It carries an average of approximately 4,000 active
stockkeeping units per warehouse in its core warehouse business.  
Many consumable products are offered for sale in case, carton or
multiple-pack quantities only.  As of Aug. 31, 2008, Costco
operated 512 membership warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Certification in Ward Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class certification motion of the plaintiff's in the suit,
Carrie Ward v. Costco Wholesale Corp., U.S. District Court (Los
Angeles), Case No. CV08-02013 FMC (FFM), remains pending.

The putative class action, filed on Jan. 24, 2008, purportedly
brought on behalf of two groups of former California employees-an
"Unpaid Wage Class" and a "Wage Statement Class."

The "Unpaid Wage Class" alleges that the Company improperly
deducts employee credit card balances from final paychecks, while
the "Wage Statement Class" alleges that final paychecks do not
contain the accurate and itemized information legally required
for wage statements, according to the company's Oct. 16, 2009,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Aug. 30, 2009.

On May 29, 2008, the court granted in part a motion to dismiss,
dismissing with prejudice the wage-itemization claims.  On May 5,
2009, the Court denied the company's motion for summary judgment.  

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.  The company's depots receive container-based
shipments from manufacturers and reallocate these goods for
shipment to its individual warehouses, generally in less than 24
hours.  The company's warehouse format averages approximately
140,000 square feet.  Its warehouses operate on a seven-day, 69-
hour week.  It carries an average of approximately 4,000 active
stockkeeping units per warehouse in its core warehouse business.  
Many consumable products are offered for sale in case, carton or
multiple-pack quantities only.  As of Aug. 31, 2008, Costco
operated 512 membership warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Still Awaits Decision in Ellis Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. and other parties in Shirley "Rae" Ellis
v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. C-04-3341-MHP (N.D. Calif.),
still await a decision from the Ninth Circuit.

The case, brought as a class action on behalf of certain present
and former female managers, in which plaintiffs allege denial of
promotion based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and California state law.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief,
interest and attorneys' fees.  Class certification was granted by
the district court on Jan. 11, 2007.

On May 11, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
granted a petition to hear the company's appeal of the
certification.  The appeal was argued on April 14, 2008.
Proceedings in the district court have been stayed during the
appeal. The parties await a decision from the Ninth Circuit,
according to the company's Oct. 16, 2009, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Aug. 30, 2009.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/--  
operates membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.  The company's depots receive container-based
shipments from manufacturers and reallocate these goods for
shipment to its individual warehouses, generally in less than 24
hours.  The company's warehouse format averages approximately
140,000 square feet.  Its warehouses operate on a seven-day, 69-
hour week.  It carries an average of approximately 4,000 active
stockkeeping units per warehouse in its core warehouse business.  
Many consumable products are offered for sale in case, carton or
multiple-pack quantities only.  As of Aug. 31, 2008, Costco
operated 512 membership warehouses.


DEERE & CO: Prevails in S.D. Iowa Retiree Health Benefits Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edvard Pettersson at Bloomberg News reports that Deere & Co.,
prevailed in Brubaker v. Deere & Co., Case No. 08-cv-00113 (S.D.
Iowa) (Wolle, J.), a lawsuit brought by retirees who claimed the
company wasn't entitled to cut their health-care benefits last
year.

"Where language stating that retiree medical benefits 'will
continue' is accompanied by a reservation-of-rights provision,
the plan sponsor retains the unqualified right to change the
plans as a matter of law," the Honorable Charles Wolle said in a
ruling dated Oct. 16.  

Coverage of the trial in this matter appeared in the Sept. 29,
2009, edition of the Class Action Reporter.  


GATEWAY INC: C.D. Calif. Suit Complains About Computer Warranties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Gateway computer assigned
warranty services to an insolvent company to frustrate customers'
requests for service, a class action claims in Los Angeles
Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Wilson v. Gateway, Inc., et al., Case
No. 09-cv-07560 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/19/Gateway.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
          Christine M. Ford, Esq.
          MEISELMAN, DENLEA, PACKMAN, CARTON & EBERZ P.C.
          1311 Mamaroneck Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: 914-517-5000

               - and -  

          Robyn C. Crowther, Esq.
          Matthew W. O'Brien, Esq.
          CALDWELL LESLIE & PROCTOR, PC
          1000 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2463
          Telephone: 213-629-9040


HILLENBRAND INC: Fifth Circuit Denies FCA's Reconsideration Plea
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has denied the
Funeral Consumers Alliance Inc.'s motion for reconsideration and
their alternative motion for leave to file a petition for
rehearing en banc in its antitrust lawsuit against Batesville
Casket Company, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Hillenbrand,
Inc., and three of its funeral home customers.

Class certification hearings in the FCA Action and the Pioneer
Valley Action were held before a Magistrate Judge in early
December 2006.  In 2005 the FCA and a number of individual
consumer casket purchasers filed a purported class action
antitrust lawsuit on behalf of certain consumer purchasers of
Batesville(R) caskets against the company and its former parent
company, Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., now Hill-Rom Holdings,
Inc., and three national funeral home businesses.

A similar purported antitrust class action lawsuit was later
filed by Pioneer Valley Casket Co. and several so-called
"independent casket distributors" on behalf of casket sellers who
were unaffiliated with any licensed funeral home.

On Nov. 24, 2008, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the
plaintiffs' motions for class certification in both cases be
denied.  On March 26, 2009, the District Judge adopted the
memoranda and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and denied
class certification in both cases.

On April 9, 2009, the plaintiffs in the FCA case filed a petition
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for leave to
file an appeal of the Court's order denying class certification.  
On June 19, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit denied the
FCA plaintiffs' petition.

On July 9, 2009, the FCA plaintiffs filed a request for
reconsideration of the denial of their petition.

On July 29, 2009, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit denied
the FCA plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and their
alternative motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing en
banc, according to the company's Aug. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

Hillenbrand, Inc. -- http://www.HillenbrandInc.com-- is the
holding company for Batesville Casket Company, a leader in the
North American death care industry through the sale of funeral
services products, including burial caskets, cremation caskets,
containers and urns, selection room display fixturing and other
personalization and memorialization products.


MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Appeal of Bateman Certification Ruling Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's appeal of the denial of his renewed motion for
class certification in Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc.,
Case No. 07-cv-00171 (C.D. Calif.), which names Marquee
Holdings, Inc., as a defendant, is pending.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act.  FACTA provides in part that neither expiration
dates nor more than the last five numbers of a credit or debit
card may be printed on receipts given to customers.  It imposes
significant penalties upon violators where the violation is
deemed to have been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to
actual losses incurred by the card holder.

The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class
action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for class certification without prejudice pending the
Ninth Circuit's decision in an appeal from a denial of
certification in a similar FACTA case.

The District Court stayed all proceedings in the case pending
the outcome of the Ninth Circuit case.

On June 3, 2008, the President of the United States of America
signed the FACTA reform bill.  The bill specifies that if a
company printed the expiration date on credit card receipts, but
otherwise complied with FACTA, it did not willfully violate the
law.  The legislation does not specifically address the
situation where more than five digits of the credit card are
printed on a receipt.

The Ninth Circuit appeal was subsequently dismissed after the
parties reached a settlement.

On Oct. 24, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiff's renewed
motion for class certification.

Plaintiff has appealed this decision and the case is stayed
pending this appeal, according to the company's Aug. 12, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 2, 2009.

The suit is Michael Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case
No. 07-cv-00052 (C.D. Calif.) (Feess, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
         Ira Spiro, Esq.  
         SPIRO MOSS BARNESS
         11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Phone: 310-235-2468

Representing the defendants is:

         David E. Novitski, Esq.
         THELEN REID BROWN RAYMANS AND STEINER
         333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048
         Phone: 213-576-8097
         Fax: 213-576-8080


MDL 2036: Checking Account Overdraft Suits Sent to S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marking a substantial step forward in litigation over the banking
industry's abusive and excessive overdraft fee policies and
practices, plaintiffs' counsel in In re Checking Account
Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036; Master Docket No. 09-md-2036
(S.D. Fla.), announced that bank customers have filed a series of
nationwide class action lawsuits against Bank of America,
Wachovia, U.S. Bank, JPMorgan Chase and Citibank.  The complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida in Miami, where all federal lawsuits brought
against the banking industry for abusive overdraft fees have been
coordinated before the Honorable James Lawrence King.

"The collection of excessive overdraft fees, usually around $35
per transaction, impacts millions of Americans each year and has
become a multibillion-dollar profit center for the banks,"
explained lead plaintiffs' counsel Bruce S. Rogow, Esq.  "In many
instances, these overdraft fees cost customers hundreds of
dollars in a matter of days, or even hours, when they may be
overdrawn by only a few dollars.  Charging a $35 overdraft fee
when a college student uses her debit card to buy a cup of coffee
is unconscionable."

                How Bank "Overdraft Protection" Works
                  and Why the Abusive Collection of
                 Overdraft Fees is a National Concern

Today, when customers open checking accounts, banks provide debit
cards for the withdrawal of cash from ATM machines and the
purchase of goods and services.  Many bank customers are not
aware that as part of the process of obtaining the debit card,
banks automatically enroll their customers in "overdraft
protection."  The overdraft protection kicks in if the customer
spends more than he or she has in the account to cover the
purchase, up to a limit of a few hundred dollars.  

Banks could simply decline to honor customer ATM or point-of-sale
transactions if the account lacks sufficient funds, or could warn
customers that if they go through with the transaction an
overdraft fee will be assessed.  In fact, until a few years ago,
most banks simply declined debit transactions that would overdraw
an account.  

"Banks do not record charges and purchases on ATM or debit cards
in the order they actually occur," stated plaintiffs' counsel
Michael W. Sobol, Esq., of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP.  "Instead, banks reorder the charges and purchases so that
the largest charge or purchase is the first one paid by the bank.  
This manipulative practice is intentionally designed, the
complaints allege, to maximize overdraft fee revenue."

"If you buy your kids a $15 meal at McDonalds on your debit card
and your account was overdrawn, that lunch actually cost you
$50," added Mr. Sobol.  "The bank won't decline the debit
transaction, nor will the bank tell you that you have overdrawn
your account and is about to turn your $15 lunch into a $50
expense."

In 2007, banks collected more than $17 billion in overdraft fees.  
That number nearly doubled in 2008, as more and more consumers
struggled to maintain positive checking account balances.  In
2009, banks are expected to bring in up to $40 billion in
overdraft charges from nearly 50 million customers.  

"While all bank customers have been affected, these overdraft fee
policies disproportionately affect young people, the elderly and
the poor, who are most likely to maintain low account balances,"
noted Mr. Rogow.  "Moreover, these fees have the tendency to
create a domino effect, resulting in even more fees."  

               Further Information for Bank Customers

Bank customers assessed overdraft fees who wish to learn more
about this litigation should visit http://www.bank-overdraft.com/
where they can submit their complaint to plaintiffs' counsel.

Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs is:

          Bruce S. Rogow, Esq.
          Robert C. Gilbert, Esq.
          Jeremy William Alters, Esq.
          Kimberly Lynn Boldt, Esq.
          ALTERS BOLDT BROWN RASH & CULMO, P.A.
          4141 N.E. 2nd Avenue
          Miami, Florida 33137

The members of the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee are:

          Bruce Steckler, Esq.
          Russell Budd, Esq.
          S. Ann Saucer, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219

               - and -  

          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          GOLUMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102

               - and -  

          Barry R. Himmelstein, Esq.
          Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
          Jordan S. Elias, Esq.
          Mikaela Bernstein, Esq.
          Roger Norton Heller, Esq.
          Barry R. Himmelstein, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          Embarcadero Center West
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339

               - and -  

          Elizabeth A. Alexander, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          150 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 1650
          Nashville, TN 37219-2415

               - and -  

          Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
          Victor M. Diaz, Jr., Esq.
          John Gravante, III, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P. A.
          City National Bank Building
          25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33130-1780

               - and -  

          Ted E. Trief, Esq.
          Barbara E. Olk, Esq.
          Arlene Stevens, Esq.
          TRIEF & OLK
          150 East 58th Street, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10155
     
               - and -  

          Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, L.L.C.
          1900 The Exchange SE, Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339

Individual plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carey Gavin Been, Esq.
          Denise Lissette Diaz, Esq.
          Jeffrey F. Keller, Esq.
          Kathleen R. Scanlan, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          425 Second Street, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94107

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS & BERMAN
          1301 5th Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101

               - and -  

          Nicholas A. Carlin, Esq.
          Randy Scott Erlewine, Esq.
          David M. Given, Esq.  
          PHILLIPS & ERLEWINE & GIVEN LLP
          50 California Street, 35th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111

               - and -  

          Charles M. Delbaum, Esq.
          Stuart T. Rossman, Esq.
          NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
          7 Winthrop Square, 4th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110

               - and -  

          Robert Cecil Gilbert, Esq.
          4141 NE 2nd Avenue, Suite 201
          Miami, FL 33137

               - and -  

          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          Stephan Matanovic, Esq.
          Damien Zillas, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK PC
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102

               - and -  

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.  
          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 W. Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041

               - and -  

          Jae Kook Kim, Esq.
          Richard D. McCune, Jr., Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT LLP
          2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
          Redlands, CA 92374

               - and -  

          Steve D. Larson, Esq.
          Joshua L. Ross, Esq.
          STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER
          209 SW Oak Street, 5th Floor
          Portland, OR 97204

               - and -  

          David Henry Lichter, Esq.
          HIGER LICHTER & GIVNER LLP
          18305 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 402
          Aventura, FL 33160

               - and -  

          Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq.  
          NAGEL RICE LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068

               - and -  

          Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
          COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
          Park 80 Plaza West One
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663

Bank of America is represented by:

          Laurence J. Hutt, Esq.
          Christopher S. Tarbell, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844

               - and -  

          Sharon D. Mayo, Esq.
          Aaron Schur, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          275 Battery Street, Suite 2700
          San Francisco, CA 94111

               - and -  

          James Randolph Liebler, Esq.
          Barbara Viniegra, Esq.
          LIEBLER GONZALEZ & PORTUONDO PA
          44 W. Flagler Street, 25th Floor
          Miami, FL 33130-4329

               - and -  

          William Woodhull Stone, Esq.
          HOLZER HOLZER & FISTEL LLC
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30338

Branch Banking and Trust Company is represented by:

          Nancy H. Baughan, Esq.
          Constance Melissa Ewing, Esq.
          William J. Holley, II, Esq.
          PARKER HUDSON RAINER & DOBBS
          Marquis II Tower
          285 Peachtree Center Avenue NE, Suite 1500
          Atlanta, GA 30303

Citibank is represented by:

          Alexandria Rose Kachadoorian, Esq.
          Lisa M. Simonetti, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 1800
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086

J.P. Morgan Chase is represented by:

          David Lesser, Esq.
          Christopher R. Lipsett, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR
          399 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022

U.S. Bancorp and U.S. Bank, N.A., are represented by:

          Rita Lin, Esq.
          Richard D. McCune, Jr., Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482

               - and -  

          Sylvia Rivera, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER
          555 W. 5th Street, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024

               - and -  

          C. Marie Eckert, Esq.
          Cody J. Elliott, Esq.
          MILLER NASH LLP
          111 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 3400
          Portland, OR 97204-3699
          
Wachovia Bank, N.A., is represented by:

          Tracy Thomas Cottingham, III, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS
          Bank of America Plaza
          101 South Tryon Street, Suite 3500
          Charlotte, NC 28280

               - and -  

          Jason M. Beach, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Bracken, II, Esq.
          Ashley F. Cummings, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS
          600 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4100
          Atlanta, GA 30308-2216

               - and -  

          Ann Marie Mortimer, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS
          550 S. Hope Street, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071

               - and -  

          Barry Rodney Davidson, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS
          1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2500
          Miami, FL 33131

               - and -  

          Leda Dunn Wettre, Esq.  
          ROBINSON WETTRE & MILLER LLC
          One Newark Center, 19th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is represented by:

          Dori Katrine Stibolt, Esq.
          RUDEN, MCCLOSKY, SMITH SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A.
          222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 800
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401


MURPHY OIL: 5th Cir. Revives Katrina Victims' Global Warming Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Carmella at Jurist Legal News & Research reports that the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled
that 14 victims of Hurricane Katrina have standing to sue
companies for allegedly contributing to global warming, which
they claim played a role in increasing the severity of the
hurricane.  The court found Friday that the plaintiffs had
presented enough evidence against the oil, coal, and chemical
companies named in the Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint
in Comer, et al. v. Murphy Oil, U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No.
05-cv-00436 (S.D. Miss.), to allow the class action lawsuit to
proceed.  A copy of the Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint is
available at http://is.gd/4swvA

The Fifth Circuit's ruling reversed the decision of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, which
dismissed the case for lack of standing and on political question
grounds.  The appeals court wrote:

     Here, the plaintiffs' complaint alleges that defendants'
     emissions caused the plaintiffs' property damage, which is
     redressable through monetary damages; for example, the
     plaintiffs allege that defendants' willful, unreasonable use
     of their property to emit greenhouse gasses constituted
     private nuisance under Mississippi law because it inflicted
     injury on the plaintiffs' land by causing both land loss due
     to sea level rise and property damage due to Hurricane
     Katrina.

The court also rejected the finding of the district court that
the case presented a political question. While the appeals court
acknowledged the difficulty in proving causation for any
plaintiff in such a case, the result could potentially lead to a
rise in the lawsuits brought on the subject of climate change.

A copy of the Fifth Circuit's ruling in Comer, et al. v. Murphy
Oil USA, et al., No. 07-60756 (5th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/07/07-60756-CV0.wpd.pdf

In the District Court proceeding, the Plaintiffs are represented
by:

          F. Gerald Maples, Esq
          Stephen M. Wiles, Esq.  
          Carlos A. Zelaya, II, Esq.
          F. GERALD MAPLES, P.A.
          902 Julia Street
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 569-8732

               - and -  

          Timothy W. Porter, Esq.
          PORTER & MALOUF
          825 Ridgewood Rd
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 957-1173

While last week's ruling is the first to grant individuals
standing in a case involving climate change, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled last month that states can
sue power companies for emitting carbon dioxide, allegedly
contributing to global warming.  The Obama administration has
taken several steps this year to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
In June, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a climate bill
-- H.R. 2454 -- that focuses on clean energy.  The bill calls for
a reduction in greenhouse emissions by 17 percent from 2005
levels by 2020, and by 80 percent by 2050 by establishing a cap-
and-trade system.  It also establishes for the first time limits
on greenhouse gases that will become progressively stricter,
providing an incentive for a transition to green energy sources
ranging from "wind, solar, and geothermal power to safer nuclear
energy and cleaner coal."


NEW YORK THRUWAY: Inequitable Grand Island Toll Case Reinstated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reinstated a class action lawsuit challenging a New York Thruway
Authority toll policy that affords a discount to Grand Island
residents and denies the same benefit to all other New Yorkers
and to all nonresidents of New York.  

A copy of the Second Circuit's ruling is available at
http://is.gd/4sd5h

The appellate proceeding is Selevan, et al. v. New York Thruway
Authority, No. 07-0037-cv (2d Cir.).  The proceeding before the
trial court is Selevan, et al. v. New York Thruway Authority, et
al, Case No. 06-cv-00291 (N.D.N.Y.) (Sharpe, J.).

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
          LOCKS LAW FIRM PLLC
          747 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-838-3333


NEWS CORP: No Trial Date Yet for Consolidated "Brown" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
No trial date has been set yet on the consolidated class action
lawsuit, Jim Brown v. Brett C. Brewer, et al., according to News
Corp.'s Aug. 12, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.  

On June 14, 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned Jim
Brown v. Brett C. Brewer, et al., was filed against certain
former Intermix directors and officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

The plaintiff asserted claims for alleged violations of Section
14a of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9, as well as control
person liability under Section 20a.

The plaintiff alleged that certain defendants disseminated false
and misleading definitive proxy statements on two occasions:

     -- one on Dec. 30, 2003 in connection with the shareholder
        vote on Jan. 29, 2004 on the election of directors and
        ratification of financing transactions with certain
        entities of VantagePoint, and

     -- another on Aug. 25, 2005 in connection with the
        shareholder vote on the FIM Transaction.

The complaint named as defendants certain VantagePoint related
entities, the former general counsel and the members of the
Intermix Board who were incumbent on the dates of the respective
proxy statements.  Intermix was not named as a defendant, but has
certain indemnity obligations to the former officer and director
defendants in connection with these claims and allegations.

On Aug. 25, 2006, plaintiff amended his complaint to add certain
investment banks as defendants.  Intermix has certain indemnity
obligations to the Investment Banks as well.

Plaintiff amended his complaint again on Sept. 27, 2006, which
defendants moved to dismiss.  On Feb. 9, 2007, the case was
transferred to Judge George H. King, the judge assigned to the
LeBoyer action, on the grounds that it raises substantially
related questions of law and fact as LeBoyer, and would entail
substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges.

On June 11, 2007, Judge King ordered the Brown case be
consolidated with the LeBoyer action, ordered plaintiffs' counsel
to file a consolidated first amended complaint, and further
ordered the parties to file a joint brief on defendants'
contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated first amended
complaint.  On July 11, 2007, plaintiffs filed the consolidated
first amended complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss.

By order dated Jan. 17, 2008, Judge King granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the 2003 proxy claims (concerning VantagePoint
transactions) and the 2005 proxy claims (concerning the FIM
Transaction), as well as a claim against the VantagePoint
entities alleging unjust enrichment.

The court found it unnecessary to rule on dismissal of the
remaining claims, which are related to the 2005 FIM Transaction,
because the dismissal disposed of those claims.

On Feb. 8, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated Second Amended
Complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss on February 28,
2008.  By order dated July 15, 2008, the court granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss.  The 2003
claims and the claims against the Investment Banks were dismissed
with prejudice.

The Section 14a and Section 20a, as well as the breach of
fiduciary duty claims related to the FIM Transaction, remain
against the officer and director defendants and the VantagePoint
defendants.  On Oct. 6, 2008, defendants filed a partial motion
for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Section 14a,
Section 20 and state law disclosure claims.  On Nov. 10, 2008,
Judge King denied the motion without prejudice.

On Nov. 14, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification to which defendants filed their opposition on Jan.
14, 2009.  On June 22, 2009, the court granted plaintiff's motion
for class certification, certifying a class of all holders of
Intermix Media, Inc. common stock, from July 18, 2005 through
consummation of the News Corporation merger, who were allegedly
harmed by defendants' improper conduct as set forth in the
complaint.

Fact discovery has been completed, and expert discovery is
proceeding.  Defendants are preparing a motion for summary
judgment, which must be filed by Oct. 13, 2009.

News Corp. -- http://www.newscorp.com/-- is a diversified
entertainment company with operations in eight industry
segments, including Filmed Entertainment, Television, Cable
Network Programming, Direct Broadcast Satellite Television,
Magazines and Inserts, Newspapers and Information Services, Book
Publishing and Other.  The activities of News Corporation are
conducted principally in the United States, the United Kingdom,
Continental Europe, Australia, Asia and the Pacific Basin.
Through its subsidiaries, it is engaged in the operation of
broadcast television stations, and the development, production
and distribution of network and television programming.  The
company engages in the direct broadcast satellite business
through its subsidiary, SKY Italia.  It also owns interests in
BSkyB and Premiere, which are engaged in the direct broadcast
satellite business.


NOVARTIS AG: U.S. Labor Dept. Says Salespeople Are Employees
------------------------------------------------------------
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Honorable Paul A. Crotty dismissed In Re Novartis Wage and Hour
Litigation, Case No. 06-md-1794 (S.D.N.Y.), in January 2009, and
the Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.  

Last week, Margaret Cronin Fisk at Bloomberg News reports, the
U.S. Department of Labor filed an amicus brief asking the Second
Circuit to overturn Judge Crotty's decision and arguing that
Novartis AG's sales representatives are covered by federal wage-
and-hour laws requiring payment of overtime.

"Under the department's regulations, the reps do not meet the
requirements for either the outside sales or administrative
exemption," the government says, because they don't sell directly
to doctors or exercise independent judgment on significant  
matters.

The lawsuit includes more than 2,500 current and former sales
representatives.  They may seek damages totaling as much as $100
million, David Sanford, Esq., of Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP in
Washington, tells Ms. Fisk.  


TARGET CORP: Accused of Mislabeling Organic Food Products
---------------------------------------------------------
A public interest group that focuses on food and agriculture, The
Cornucopia Institute, announced this week that it had filed
formal complaints with the USDA's organic program, and Wisconsin
and Minnesota officials, alleging that Target Corporation has
misled consumers into thinking some conventional food items it
sells are organic.

The complaints are the latest salvo into a growing controversy
whereas corporate agribusiness and major retailers have been
accused of blurring the line between "natural" products and food
that has been grown, processed and properly certified organic
under tight federal standards.

"Major food processors have recognized the meteoric rise of the
organic industry, and profit potential, and want to create what
is in essence 'organic light,' taking advantage of the market
cachet but not being willing to do the heavy lifting required to
earn the valuable USDA organic seal," said Mark A. Kastel, Senior
Farm Policy Analyst at Cornucopia.

The Wisconsin-based farm policy research group discovered Target
nationally advertised Silk soymilk in newspapers with the term
"organic" pictured on the carton's label, when in fact the
manufacturer, Dean Foods, had quietly shifted their products away
from organics.

Dean Foods, and its WhiteWave division, received media scrutiny,
and industry condemnation, this past spring for not notifying
retailers or changing the UPC codes, when they quietly switched
to conventional soybeans in their core-products.

Dean/WhiteWave also received heat in the organic food and
agriculture community when they decided to convert some of their
Horizon products, the leading organic label in terms of sales
volume, to cheaper "natural" (conventional) ingredients.  "This
really hit a nerve because one of these new Horizon products,
Little Blends yogurt, is aimed specifically at toddlers, at an
early stage of development, where the nutritional superiority of
organic food, and its utility in avoiding chemical residues in
our food, is so critically important," Mr. Kastel added.

A front-page story in the Chicago Tribune in July outlined a
consumer survey that showed the public was unclear about the
difference between natural and organic labels and that some
corporations, particularly Dean Foods, were taking advantage of
the confusion in the marketplace.

The story quoted Suzanne Shelton, president and CEO of the
Shelton Group which conducted the survey, as saying, "They
[consumers] think 'natural' is regulated by the government but
that organic isn't, and of course it's just the opposite."

In fact, a strict set of farm and food handling standards have
been developed and implemented by the federal government to
regulate food that qualifies for the USDA's organic seal.  For
the most part, food products containing "natural" ingredients
represent little more than soothing marketing puffery aimed at
consumers.  

This is not the first tangle involving Cornucopia and Target.  
The giant Minneapolis-based retailer's own upscale private label
food line, Archer Farms, which blurs the line selling both
natural and organically labeled food, came under scrutiny when
Cornucopia discovered that it's organic milk supplier, Colorado-
based Aurora Dairy,  was flagrantly violating federal organic
livestock standards and filed a complaint with the USDA.

USDA investigators determined that Aurora had willfully violated
14 federal organic regulations.  In what was condemned as a
"sweetheart deal" by some in the organic industry, the Bush
administration allowed Aurora to stay in business.  Unlike some
other retailers, Target stuck with Aurora as their milk supplier
for their Archer Farms label.

"In an industry where educational achievement and passion are the
common denominators in describing its clientele, Target could
certainly be viewed as arrogant to think they can take advantage
of consumers by ignoring both the spirit and letter of the laws
governing organic commerce," Mr. Kastel affirmed.

SuperTarget stores have gained significant market share around
the country and are, according to a recent Nielsen/Shelby report,
now the number two grocer in Minnesota's Twin Cities market.

"We feel very strongly about taking seriously the use of the
regulated term: Organic," said Lindy Bannister, general manager
of The Wedge, the nation's largest member-owned cooperative
store.  "Although we welcome all the players that bring organic
food to people, we must insist that, for the unregulated (the
non-certified retailers), they at the very least should proof
their ads as they are subject to a federal fine for misusing that
regulated term."

This is not the first time The Cornucopia Institute has found
that specialty retailers, like the nation's approximately 275 co-
op grocers, have faced unethical competition from big-box chains.  
After the group filed complaints with federal and state
regulators against Wal-Mart in 2006, also alleging
misrepresention of conventional food as organic with improper
signage in their stores, the nation's largest retailer signed
consent agreements with the USDA and the state of Wisconsin
committing to change their practices.

"Wal-Mart did indeed clean up its act, as we expect Target to do,
but it should not take the judicious oversight of an industry
watchdog to cause these giant corporations to comply with the
law, said Will Fantle, research director for the Wisconsin-based
Cornucopia.  "One of the reasons these companies can undercut
other retailers is they do not invest in the kind of management
expertise necessary to prevent problems of this nature from
occurring."

"It's bad enough Target steals real farmers' identities with that
fake 'Archer Farms' label," said Barth Anderson, a consumer long
involved in the organic movement and chief blogger at Fair Food
Fight.  "But blurring the lines between natural and organic is
just plain wrong.  Target is trying to profiteer at the expense
of consumers like me."

Mr. Anderson was adamant that, "There's nothing wrong with larger
corporations being involved in organics but if they squeeze out
ethical companies by cutting corners, or play fast and loose by
the rules, everyone loses - real farmers, organic consumers and
retailers alike.  Blurring the lines between natural and organic
is just plain trying to profiteer at the expense of consumers
like me."

A copy of the complaint filed with the USDA's National Organic
Program by:

          Will Fantle
          Director of Research
          P.O. Box 126
          Cornucopia, WI 54827
          Telephone: 715-839-7731

is available at:

     http://www.cornucopia.org/USDA/TargetComplaint_10-09.pdf


WD-40 COMPANY: 9th Cir. Remands Drimmer Suit to S.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth District Court of Appeals, on Sept. 10, 2009, remanded
the case filed against WD-40 Co. to the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of California.

Drimer v. WD-40 Company, Case No. 06-cv-00900 (S.D. Calif.)
(Whelan, J.), was filed on April 19, 2006.  After several of the
plaintiff's factual claims were dismissed by way of motion, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Sept. 20, 2006, seeking
class action status and alleging that the company misrepresented
that its 2000 Flushes Bleach and 2000 Flushes Blue Plus Bleach
ATBCs are safe for plumbing systems and unlawfully omitted to
advise consumers regarding the allegedly damaging effect the use
of the ATBCs has on toilet parts made of plastic and rubber.

The amended complaint sought to remedy such allegedly wrongful
conduct:

    (i) by requiring the company to identify all consumers who
        have purchased the ATBCs and to return money as may be
        ordered by the court; and

   (ii) by the granting of other equitable relief, interest,
        attorneys' fees and costs.

On Aug. 24, 2007, the company successfully defeated the
plaintiff's attempt to have the case certified as a class action.  
The plaintiff has appealed the District Court's decision, and the
case was argued at the appellate level in April 2009.

On Aug. 19, 2009, the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed
the District Court's certification decision.  The case has been
remanded to the District Court, according to the company's Oct.
16, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2009.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN AND BALINT
          2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100

               - and -  

          Robert Joseph Solis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT J. SOLIS
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1370
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-1900

WD-40 Company is represented by:

          Shannon Sweeney, Esq.
          BAKER AND MCKENZIE
          101 West Broadway, Suite 1200
          San Diego, CA 92101-8213
          Telephone: (619) 236-1441

WD-40 Company -- http://www.wd40.com/-- is a global consumer  
products company it markets two multi-purpose maintenance
products known as WD-40 and 3-IN-ONE Oil, and eight homecare and
cleaning products, X-14 hard surface cleaners and automatic
toilet bowl cleaners (ATBC), 2000 Flushes automatic toilet bowl
cleaners, Carpet Fresh and No Vac rug and room deodorizers, Spot
Shot aerosol and liquid carpet stain removers, 1001 carpet and
household cleaners and rug and room deodorizers and Lava and
Solvol heavy-duty hand cleaners.  Multi-purpose maintenance
products are sold worldwide in markets, such as North, Central
and South America, Asia, Australia and the Pacific Rim, Europe,
the Middle East and Africa. Homecare and cleaning products are
sold in North America, the United Kingdom, Australia and the
Pacific Rim.  The company sells its products through mass retail
and home center stores, warehouse club stores, grocery stores,
hardware stores, automotive parts outlets, and industrial
distributors and suppliers.  

                            *********

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  * * *