CAR_Public/091028.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, October 28, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 213
  
                            Headlines

ADVANCED MOVING: Ill. Suit Charges Mover with Deceptive Pricing
ALLIANZ LIFE: Senior Citizen Class Can Pursue Punitive Damages
ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: David Robb Wants Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
ALLSTATE LIFE: Third Circuit Breathes Life Back Into ERISA Case
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Suit Says "Blue Cash Card" Didn't Return Cash

ARCA BIOPHARMA: Continues to Seek Dismissal of Amended Suit
BFC FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend "Dance" Securities Suit
BRUSH ENGINEERED: Appeal to Denied "Marin" Certification Pending
BRUSH ENGINEERED: Appellate Court Approves Motion to Lift Stay
CELERA CORP: No Agreement Reached in Stock Purchasers Suit

FORETHOUGHT FEDERAL: Prepaid Funeral Scam Alleged in Tennessee
GUIDANT CORP: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Ind. Investor Suit
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Pa. Securities Suit Gets Class Certification
MARCUS CORP: Units Plea to Dismiss "Goodman" Suit Being Briefed
NUCOR CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in Illinois

SOUTHERN STAR: Kansas Court Mulls Intervention Bid in "Price I"
SOUTHERN STAR: Court Yet to Allow Intervenor in "Price II" Case
TELLABS INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in Securities Fraud Suit
TELLABS INC: "Brieger" Plaintiffs File Notice of Appeal
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: Sued For Favoring Applicants with Clout

USANA HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Chirco" Suit in Nevada Court

                            *********

ADVANCED MOVING: Ill. Suit Charges Mover with Deceptive Pricing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action claims Advanced Moving and Storage made a lowball bid and
then increased the charge on moving day, when its customer had
"little alternative but to submit" to the scheme.

Named plaintiff Tammie Lester says she rejected Advanced Moving's
bid for her move from Illinois to Texas, but later received a
call from the company's representative, James Lalagos, who
promised she would be charged $1,100 if she shared a truck with
another customer.  Ms. Lester says Lalagos promised her there
would be no cancellation fee, so she accepted the offer.

But when movers arrived at her home, they told her the price had
increased and there would be a $400 cancellation fee, Mr. Lester
says.  She canceled anyway, afraid of what might happen if she
let the company take her stuff, according to the complaint in
Cook County Court.

Ms. Lester says she found out later that Advanced Moving had
charged the full amount for the move on her debit card days
before, and has refused to issue her a refund.

She says Advanced Moving falsely claims it does not charge until
the day of the move.

She seeks punitive damages from Advanced Moving and Lalagos,
alleging unjust enrichment and consumer fraud.

A copy of the Complaint in Lester v. Advanced Moving and Storage,
Inc., Case No. 09CH40388 (Ill. Cit. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/23/Moving.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith E. Allen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEITH E. ALLEN, LTD.
          333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312-759-2152


ALLIANZ LIFE: Senior Citizen Class Can Pursue Punitive Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge in San Diego
ruled that a class of senior citizens can pursue punitive damages
against Allianz Life Insurance accused of using deceptive sales
tactics to sell highly inappropriate derivative investments at
senior centers in a carnival atmosphere with free drinks, joke
sheets and door prizes.

Allianz asked the court to decide punitive damages on a case-by-
case basis, but U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino said the
company's deceptive practices, as described in the underlying
complaint, "were substantially the same" for all plaintiffs.

"A jury can assess the harm that could have been caused by these
misrepresentations as a whole based on the Defendant's misconduct
irrespective of the individual circumstances surrounding the
class members, as they are all, at bottom, elderly persons who
relied on misrepresentations regarding the bonus that was
allegedly part of the offered annuity plan," Judge Sammartino
wrote.

Allianz allegedly targeted seniors with deferred annuities, which
are fixed-account investments that mature over a long period of
time.  Allianz also hit seniors with "substantial surrender
charges" if they tried to withdraw their money early, according
to the 2005 lawsuit.

"This inherent lack of flexibility, coupled with the diminishing
resources of the elderly, was one of the principal reasons for
California's enactment of the Senior Insurance provisions," said
plaintiff lawyer Ronald Marron in the class complaint, referring
to regulations protecting seniors from con artists.

Citing the experience of the named plaintiff, Anthony Lorio, the
complaint says he received a flyer advertising a complimentary
financial planning seminar for seniors at the Harding Center in
Carlsbad.

The defendant Allianz used cut-outs, or contractors, in an effort
insulate itself from liability, said the complaint.  The pitch
man in Carlsbad is described in the complaint as a "very dynamic
speaker" pitching bad investments to the old folks in "a carnival
atmosphere with free beverages, a folder filled with information
including a sheet of jokes on top, and changes for door prizes."

In allowing the class to go after punitive damages over the
defendants' sales tactics, Judge Sammartino was also critical of
the defendants' legal tactics. "Though defendants originally
brought this matter before the Court on the false assertion at
oral argument that new Ninth Circuit law has been produced,
prompting the Court to allow the present motion to filed, this
simply not the case."

Judge Sammartino said she declined to turn the law on its head
without further guidance from the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme
Court. "The Court finds that class certification of the punitive
damages claim in the above action does not violate the
defendant's due process rights under the current state of the
law."

Trial is set to begin in March 2010.

A copy of the Court's Order Denying Defendant's Motion to
Decertify Punitive Damages Class Claim entered in Iorio, et al.
v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No.
05-cv-633 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/23/Allianz.pdf



ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: David Robb Wants Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Robb has moved for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for
approval of selection of lead and liaison counsel in a lawsuit
against Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions Inc., according to
the company's Oct. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31,
2009.

On Aug. 4, 2009, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the
company, Glen Tullman and William Davis by the Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund on
behalf of a purported class consisting of stockholders who
purchased Allscripts common stock between May 8, 2007 and Feb.
13, 2008.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, the company,
Glen Tullman and William Davis made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition
and prospects, and on that basis the complaint asserts violations
of federal securities laws.

The plaintiff seeks to recover the price declines in Allscripts'
common stock that occurred on Nov. 8, 2007, when the company
released its third quarter 2007 financial results, and on Feb.
13, 2008, when the company released full year 2007 results.

On Oct. 5, 2009, David Robb moved for appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and for approval of selection of lead and liaison
counsel.  

Headquartered in Chicago, Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions
Inc. -- http://www.allscripts.com/-- uses innovation technology  
to bring health to healthcare.  More than 160,000 physicians, 800
hospitals and nearly 8,000 post-acute and homecare organizations
utilize Allscripts to improve the health of their patients and
their bottom line.  The company's award-winning solutions include
electronic health records, electronic prescribing, revenue cycle
management, practice management, document management, hospital
care management, emergency department information systems and
homecare automation.  Allscripts is the brand name of Allscripts-
Misys Healthcare Solutions, Inc.


ALLSTATE LIFE: Third Circuit Breathes Life Back Into ERISA Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the
decision which granted Allstate Insurance Company's motion to
dismiss a putative nationwide class action filed by former
employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA, including a
worker classification issue, according to Allstate Life Insurance
Company's Aug. 11, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2009.  

Allstate Life is wholly owned by Allstate Insurance.

These plaintiffs are challenging certain amendments to the Agents
Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent independent
contractors treated as employees for benefit purposes.  This
matter was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, was the
subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was reversed and
remanded to the trial court in 2005.

In June 2007, the court granted Allstate Insurance's motion to
dismiss the case.  Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of
appeal, the Third Circuit issued an order in December 2007
stating that the notice of appeal was not taken from a final
order within the meaning of the federal law and thus not
appealable at this time.

In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should
not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the
matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Third
Circuit along with the merits of the appeal.

In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated the decision which
granted Allstate Insurance's motion to dismiss the case, remanded
the case to the trial court for additional discovery, and
directed that the case be reassigned to another trial court
judge.

Allstate Life Insurance Co. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- is a   
life insurance company.  The Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides life insurance, retirement and investment
products for individual and institutional customers.  Allstate
Life conducts substantially all of its operations directly or
through wholly owned United States subsidiaries.  The Company
and its subsidiaries are collectively referred to as the
Allstate Life Group.  The Allstate Life Group's principal
individual products are fixed annuities, including deferred,
immediate and indexed, and interest-sensitive, traditional and
variable life insurance.  It also distributes variable annuities
through its bank distribution partners.  Allstate Life is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Co., a stock
property-liability insurance company.  Allstate Insurance Co. is
owned by The Allstate Corp.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Suit Says "Blue Cash Card" Didn't Return Cash
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that American
Express lured thousands of people into accepting offers for a
"Blue Cash Card" on false promises that they could earn cash
rewards on purchases, according to a federal class action. But
"not only did American Express fail to tell its customers the
truth when the offer was made, they also failed to properly
inform those same customers that there were additional
restrictions to the Blue Cash program before or even after they
were made," the complaint states.

The cardholders say American Express' offers were full of
misrepresentations, among them, that frequent spending would earn
them even more rewards.

Lead plaintiff Mindy Pagsolingan says she accepted an offer for
the card in 2004 on American Express' representation that she
would receive a reward of "up to 5 percent" cash back on her
purchases, including a 2 percent cash bonus for her "everyday
purchases."

Ms. Pagsolingan says American Express misrepresented the cash
rebates, and used a deceptive "tiered" system based on the clause
"up to," to avoid paying her the full amount.

The class demands damages for false advertising and violation of
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Pagsolingan v. American Express
Company, et al., Case No. 09-cv-5039 (N.D. Calif.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/23/AmExSF.pdf

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
          STULL, STULL AND BRODY
          10940 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: 310-209-2468

               - and -  

          Howard T. Longman, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-687-7230

               - and -  

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          Michael L. Braunstein, Esq.
          KANTROWIT, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: 201-391-7000


ARCA BIOPHARMA: Continues to Seek Dismissal of Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
ARCA biopharma, Inc., formerly known as Nuvelo, Inc., continues
to pursue the dismissal of an amended consolidated complaint
related to the clinical trial results of alfimeprase.

On Feb. 9, 2007, Nuvelo and certain of its former and current
officers and directors were named as defendants in a purported
securities class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 related to the clinical trial results of alfimeprase, which
Nuvelo announced on Dec. 11, 2006, and seeks damages on behalf of
purchasers of Nuvelo's common stock during the period between
Jan. 5, 2006 and Dec. 8, 2006.

Specifically, the suit alleges that Nuvelo misled investors
regarding the efficacy of alfimeprase and the drug's likelihood
of success.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief.

Three additional lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of
New York on Feb. 16, 2007, March 1, 2007 and March 6, 2007.  On
April 10, 2007, three separate motions to consolidate the cases,
appoint lead plaintiff, and appoint lead plaintiff's counsel were
filed.

On April 18, 2007, Nuvelo filed a motion to transfer the four
cases to the Northern District of California.  The Court
grantedNuvelo's motion to transfer the cases to the Northern
District of California in July 2007.

Plaintiffs have filed motions for consolidation, lead plaintiff
and lead plaintiff's counsel in the Northern District of
California.  Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint in the
Northern District of California on Nov. 9, 2007.

Nuvelo filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs consolidated
complaint on Dec. 21, 2007.  Plaintiffs filed an opposition to
Nuvelo's motion to dismiss on Feb. 4, 2008.  On June 12, 2008,
the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss.

On Dec. 4, 2008, the Court issued an order dismissing plaintiff's
complaint, and granting leave to amend.

On Jan. 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging
similar claims.

On March 24, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On July 15, 2009, the Court held a hearing on the motion to
dismiss.

Based on the Court's Dec. 4, 2008 order, and plaintiff's amended
complaint, ARCA believes that any attorneys' fees, loss or
settlement payment with respect to this suit will be paid by its
insurance providers, according to the company's Aug. 10, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

ARCA biopharma, Inc. -- http://www.nuvelo.com/-- formerly known  
as Nuvelo, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the
discovery, development and commercialization of drugs for acute
cardiovascular disease, cancer and other debilitating medical
conditions.


BFC FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend "Dance" Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial Corp.'s subsidiary, Woodbridge Holdings Corp.
formerly known as Levitt Corp., continues to defend a purported
class-action complaint filed by Robert D. Dance in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, according
to the company's Aug. 11, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2009.

On Jan. 25, 2008, plaintiff Robert D. Dance filed a purported
class-action complaint as a putative purchaser of securities
against Woodbridge and certain of its officers and directors,
asserting claims under the federal securities law and seeking
damages.

This action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida and is captioned, Dance v. Levitt
Corp. et al., No. 08-CV-60111-DLG.

The securities litigation purports to be brought on behalf of
all purchasers of Woodbridge's securities beginning on Jan. 31,
2007 and ending on Aug. 14, 2007.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing a series of false and/or misleading
statements concerning Woodbridge's financial results, prospects
and condition.

BFC Financial Corp. -- http://www.bfcfinancial.com/-- is a
holding company.  Its ownership interests include direct and
indirect interests in businesses in a variety of sectors,
including consumer and commercial banking, master-planned
community development, time-share and vacation ownership, an
Asian-themed restaurant chain and various real estate and
venture capital investments.  BFC's holdings consist of direct
controlling interests in BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and Levitt
Corporation.  BFC owns a direct investment in Benihana, Inc. BFC
itself has no significant operations other than activities
relating to the monitoring of existing investments.  BFC
operates through six segments: BFC Activities, Financial
Services and four segments within its Real Estate Development
Division.


BRUSH ENGINEERED: Appeal to Denied "Marin" Certification Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from their denied motion for class
certification in the beryllium action against Brush Engineered
Materials, Inc.'s subsidiary, Brush Wellman Inc., remains
pending.

The class-action suit, Manuel Marin, et al. v. Brush Wellman
Inc., Case No. BC299055, filed in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County was filed on July 15, 2003.

The named plaintiffs are Manuel Marin, Lisa Marin, Garfield
Perry and Susan Perry.  The defendants are Brush Wellman,
Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc., and Doe Defendants 1 through 100.

A First Amended Complaint was filed on Sept. 15, 2004, naming
five additional plaintiffs.  The five additional named
plaintiffs are Robert Thomas, Darnell White, Leonard Joffrion,
James Jones and John Kesselring.

The plaintiffs allege that they have been sensitized to
beryllium while employed at the Boeing Company.  The plaintiffs'
wives claim loss of consortium.

The plaintiffs purport to represent two classes of approximately
250 members each, one consisting of workers who worked at Boeing
or its predecessors and are beryllium sensitized and the other
consisting of their spouses.  They have brought claims for
negligence, strict liability - design defect, strict liability -
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied
warranties, and unfair business practices.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, medical monitoring,
medical and health care provider reimbursement, attorneys' fees
and costs, revocation of business license, and compensatory and
punitive damages.

Messrs. Marin, Perry, Thomas, White, Joffrion, Jones and
Kesselring represent current and past employees of Boeing in
California; and Ms. Marin and Ms. Perry are spouses.

Defendant Appanaitis Enterprises Inc. was dismissed on May 5,
2005.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which the
company opposed, was heard by the court on Feb. 8, 2008, and the
motion was denied by the court on May 7, 2008.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 20, 2008.

No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 11, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2009.

Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/--
through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of
engineered materials serving the global telecommunications,
computer, data storage, aerospace and defense, automotive
electronics, industrial components, and appliance markets.


BRUSH ENGINEERED: Appellate Court Approves Motion to Lift Stay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Anthony's appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania's dismissal of his purported
class-action lawsuit against Brush Engineered Materials, Inc.
remains stayed.

The purported class-action lawsuit is captioned, "Gary Anthony
v. Small Tube Manufacturing Corporation d/b/a Small Tube
Products Corporation, Inc., et al., Case No. 000525," which was
filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania, on Sept. 7, 2006.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, under Case No. 06-CV-4419, on Oct. 4,
2006.

The only named plaintiff is Gary Anthony.  The defendants are
Small Tube Manufacturing Corporation, d/b/a Small Tube Products
Corporation, Inc.; Admiral Metals Inc.; Tube Methods, Inc.; and
Cabot Corporation.

The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a class of current
and former employees of the U.S. Gauge facility in Sellersville,
Pennsylvania who have ever been exposed to beryllium for a
period of at least one month while employed at U.S. Gauge.

The plaintiff has brought claims for negligence.  Plaintiff
seeks the establishment of a medical monitoring trust fund, cost
of publication of approved guidelines and procedures for medical
screening and monitoring of the class, attorneys' fees and
expenses.

Defendant Tube Methods, Inc. filed a third-party complaint
against Brush Wellman Inc. in that action on Nov. 15, 2006.
Tube Methods alleges that Brush supplied beryllium-containing
products to U.S. Gauge, and that Tube Methods worked on those
products, but that Brush is liable to Tube Methods for
indemnification and contribution.  Brush moved to dismiss the
Tube Methods complaint on Dec. 22, 2006.  On Jan. 12, 2007, Tube
Methods filed an amended third-party complaint, which Brush
moved to dismiss on Jan. 26, 2007; however, the Court denied the
motion on Sept. 28, 2007.  Brush filed its answer to the amended
third-party complaint on Oct. 19, 2007.

On Nov. 14, 2007, two of the defendants filed a joint motion for
an order permitting discovery to make the threshold
determination of whether plaintiff is sensitized to beryllium.

On Feb. 13, 2008, the court approved the parties' stipulation
that the plaintiff is not sensitized to beryllium.

On Feb. 29, 2008, Brush filed a motion for summary judgment
based on plaintiff's lack of any substantially increased risk of
chronic beryllium disease (CBD).

Oral argument on this motion took place on June 13, 2008, and
the court took the motion under submission.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the court granted the motion for summary
judgment in favor of all of the defendants and dismissed
plaintiff's class action complaint.

On Oct. 29, 2008, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.  The Court
of Appeals has granted a motion to stay the appeal due to the
bankruptcy of one of the appellees, Millennium Petrochemicals.

On April 3, 2009, Small Tube Manufacturing filed a motion for
relief in bankruptcy court from the automatic stay, asking that
the bankruptcy court modify the stay to allow Small Tube
Manufacturing's indemnification claim against Millennium
Petrochemicals and the Anthony case to proceed to final judgment,
including all appeals.

On May 14, 2009, the bankruptcy court approved a stipulation and
order modifying the automatic stay to permit Millennium
Petrochemicals and Small Tube Manufacturing to participate in the
appeal.

On May 27, 2009, Small Tube Manufacturing filed an unopposed
motion with the Court of Appeals to lift the stay, which the
court granted on June 22, 2009, according to the company's Aug.
11, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2009.

Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/--
through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of
engineered materials serving the global telecommunications,
computer, data storage, aerospace and defense, automotive
electronics, industrial components, and appliance markets.


CELERA CORP: No Agreement Reached in Stock Purchasers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
No agreement has yet been reached in consolidated class-action
complaint against Applied Biosystems, Inc., nka Life
Technologies, and some of its officers relating to the public
offering of Celera Group common stock, according to Celera's Aug.
11, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2009.

Applied Biosystems and some of its officers are defendants in a
lawsuit brought on behalf of purchasers of Celera stock in its
follow-on public offering of Celera stock completed on March 6,
2000.  In the offering, Applied Biosystems sold an aggregate of
approximately 4.4 million shares of Celera stock at a public
offering price of $225 per share.  The lawsuit, which was
commenced with the filing of several complaints in April and May
2000, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on
August 21, 2001.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the prospectus
used in connection with the offering was inaccurate or misleading
because it failed to adequately disclose the alleged opposition
of the Human Genome Project and two of its supporters, the
governments of the U.S. and the U.K., to providing patent
protection to Celera's genomic-based products.

Although neither Celera nor Applied Biosystems ever sought, or
intended to seek, a patent on the basic human genome sequence
data, the complaint also alleges that Applied Biosystems did not
adequately disclose the risk that it would not be able to patent
this data.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages,
rescission, costs and expenses, and other relief as the court
deems proper. On March 31, 2005, the court certified the case as
a class action.

In November 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut issued an order to the parties to show cause why the
case should not be dismissed.  A hearing on this matter was held
in April 2009 at which the Court directed the parties to explore
a potential settlement of the matter.

The parties are exploring a settlement in accordance with the
Court's direction, but no agreement has yet been reached.

Celera Corp. -- http://www.celera.com-- is a healthcare   
business delivering personalized disease management through a
combination of products and services.  The Company operates in
three segments: a clinical laboratory testing service business
(Lab Services), a products business (Products), and a segment
which includes other activities under corporate management
(Corporate).  Its Lab Services business, conducted through
Berkeley HeartLab, Inc., (BHL), offers a portfolio of clinical
laboratory tests and disease management services to help
healthcare providers improve cardiovascular disease treatment
regimens for patients.  Its Products business develops,
manufactures, and oversees the commercialization of molecular
diagnostic products, which are commercialized through its
relationship with Abbott Molecular, a subsidiary of Abbott
Laboratories.  On July 1, 2008, Celera announced that it has
completed its split-off from Applera Corp.


FORETHOUGHT FEDERAL: Prepaid Funeral Scam Alleged in Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Potocsnak at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of
Tennesseans say they were cheated of prepaid funeral services
because Forethought Federal Savings Bank used their money to take
out life insurance on them.  They say a funeral home and cemetery
took their money and deposited it with the Forethought Bank,
which used the cash to buy life insurance on them from its
subsidiary, Forethought Life Insurance.

The class says they had no idea that life insurance policies had
been taken out on their lives.

Forest Hill Funeral Home and Tennessee Cemeteries are not named
as defendants in the lawsuit, but are named as co-conspirators.
They allegedly transferred the trust funds and insurance policies
to Community Trust and Investment Company.

Community Trust allowed the insurance policies to be surrendered
for cash, the class claims, and took out extra for "substantial
surrender charges." Fees were charged and unauthorized
withdrawals were made, and the class says there was not enough
money left to pay for their burial and funeral services.

They sued Community Trust, Forethought Federal Savings Bank and
its subsidiary for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence,
conversion, fraud and civil conspiracy.

A copy of the Complaint in Foshee, et al. v. Forethought Federal
Savings Bank, et al., Case No. 09-cv-02674 (W.D. Tenn.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/23/CCAFunerals.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruce D. Brooke, Esq.
          FARGARSON & BROOKE
          254 Court Avenue, Suite 300
          Memphis, TN 38103

               - and -  

          Albert G. Lewis, III (021963)
          LEWIS & SMYTH, LLC
          611 Helen Keller Blvd.
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35404
          Telephone: (205) 553-5353

               - and -  

          BADHAM & BUCK, LLC
          2585 Wachovia Tower
          420 20th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 521-0036


GUIDANT CORP: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Ind. Investor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit upheld dismissal of a class action
accusing a Boston Scientific subsidiary of misleading investors
by concealing a design flaw in its heart defibrillators.  

A copy of the appellate decision in Fannon, et al. v. Guidant
Corporation, et al., No. 08-2429 (7th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/S215QIVA.pdf

The proceeding before the trial court is Fannon, et al. v.
Guidant Corporation, et al., Case No. 05-cv-1658 (S.D. Ind.)
(Barker, J.).


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Pa. Securities Suit Gets Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
An order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
was entered in In re Herley Industries Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-02596 (E.D. Pa.) (Sanchez, J.),
according to the company's Oct. 19, 2009, Form 10-K filing for
the fiscal year ended Aug. 2, 2009.

In June and July 2006, several class-action complaints were
served against the company and certain of Herley's current and
former officers and directors.

The claims are made under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's securities during various
periods before June 14, 2006.

All defendants in the class-action complaints filed motions to
dismiss on April 6, 2007.  On July 17, 2007, the Court issued an
order denying the company and its former Chairman's motion to
dismiss and granted, in part, the other defendants' motion to
dismiss.

Specifically, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against
the other defendants and denied the motion to dismiss the Section
20(a) claim against them.

On July 9, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification.

On March 4, 2009, all defendants filed an Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.  On May 18, 2009
Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for class
certification.  Oral argument regarding the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification was held on July 17, 2009.

On Oct. 9, 2009, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The Court certified a class consisting of all purchasers of
Herley stock between Oct. 1, 2001 and June 14, 2006, who
sustained a loss as a result of that acquisition.  The parties
are currently in the process of completing fact and expert
discovery.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stanley P. Kops, Esq.
          102 Bala Avenue
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 610-949-9999
          E-mail: Stankops@aol.com

               - and -

          Marc A. Topaz, Esq.
          SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendants are:

          Joel L. Frank, Esq.
          Thomas P. Hogan, Jr., Esq.
          LAMB MCERLANE PC
          24 East Market Street, P.O. Box 565
          West Chester, PA 19381-0565
          Phone: 610-430-8000
          Fax: 610-692-6210
          E-mail: jfrank@chescolaw.com
                  thogan@chescolaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy D. Katsiff, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          One Logan Square, 18th & Cherry Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998
          Phone: 215-569-5500
          Fax: 215-569-5555
          E-mail: katsiff@blankrome.com


MARCUS CORP: Units Plea to Dismiss "Goodman" Suit Being Briefed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Platinum Condominium Development, LLC, and Marcus Management
Marcus Management Las Vegas, LLC's move to dismiss the amended
class action complaint filed by Adam Goodman is currently being
briefed, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2009, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended May 28, 2009.  Platinum LLC and Marcus
Management are Marcus Corp.'s subsidiaries.

On Dec. 5, 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the Eighth
Judicial District Court of Nevada for Clark County against
Platinum LLC captioned, "Goodman, et al. v. Platinum Condominium
Development, LLC, Case No. 09-CV-957 (D. Nev.)."

On April 30, 2009, Platinum LLC was served with a summons and a
copy of an amended complaint. The amended complaint also named
Marcus Management as a defendant.  Subsequently, Platinum LLC and
Marcus Management removed the case to the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada, where it is currently pending.

The amended complaint in Goodman seeks an unspecified amount of
damages and alleges violations of federal and Nevada law, and
that Platinum LLC and Marcus Management made various
representations in connection with the Platinum Hotel & Spa
development in Las Vegas, Nevada.

On June 29, 2009, both Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV
moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety and their
motion is currently being briefed.

The Marcus Corporation -- http://www.marcuscorp.com/-- is  
engaged primarily in two business segments: movie theatres, and
hotels and resorts.  As of May 28, 2009, the company's theatre
operations included 53 movie theatres with 663 screens throughout
Wisconsin, Ohio, Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska and
Iowa, including one movie theatre with six screens in Wisconsin
owned by a third party but managed by the company.  It also
operates a family entertainment center, Funset Boulevard, which
is adjacent to one of its theatres in Appleton, Wisconsin. As of
May 28, 2009, the company's hotels and resorts operations
included eight owned and operated hotels and resorts in
Wisconsin, Missouri, Illinois and Oklahoma.  It also manages 12
hotels, resorts and other properties for third parties in
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, Arizona, Missouri, Nevada and
California.  As of May 28, 2009, it owned or managed
approximately 5,200 hotel and resort rooms.


NUCOR CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corp. continues to defend several related antitrust class-
action complaints filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel
purchasers in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 4, 2009.

Standard Iron Works v. ArcelorMittal, et al., Case No. 08-cv-5214
(N.D. Ill.), was filed on Sept. 12, 2008, and names the company
as defendant along with:

     1. ArcelorMittal USA,
     2. U.S. Steel Corp.,
     3. Gerdau Ameristeel,
     4. Steel Dynamics, Inc.,
     5. AK Steel Holding,
     6. SSAB Swedish Steel, and
     7. Commercial Metals

The plaintiffs allege that from January 2005 to the present, the
eight steel manufacturers engaged in anticompetitive activities
with respect to the production and sale of steel.  The plaintiffs
seek monetary and other relief.

In a decision announced on June 12, 2009, Judge James B. Zagel
denied a motion by the defendants to dismiss the lawsuit.  Judge
Zagel determined that the eight steel manufacturers coordinated
production schedules and undertook other schemes intended to
inflate the price of steel between January 2005 and the present.
(Class Action Reporter, June 18, 2009).


SOUTHERN STAR: Kansas Court Mulls Intervention Bid in "Price I"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in Stevens County, Kansas, has yet to rule on
a motion to intervene filed by a third party who is claiming
entitlement to a portion of any recovery obtained by the
plaintiffs in the purported class-action lawsuit, Will Price, et
al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al.

The putative class-action lawsuit was filed on May 28, 1999,
wherein the named plaintiffs have sued over 50 defendants,
including Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.

Asserting theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting,
accounting and unjust enrichment, a fourth amended class action
complaint in the case alleges that the defendants have under-
measured the volume of, and therefore have underpaid for, the
natural gas they have obtained from or measured for the
plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to plead
for punitive damages.

On Aug. 22, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf
of Southern Star.  Despite a denial by the court on April 10,
2003, of their original motion for class certification, the
plaintiffs continue to seek the certification of a class.

The plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification for a second
time was fully briefed and the court heard oral argument on this
motion on April 1, 2005.

In January 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to
intervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement to
a portion of any recovery obtained by the plaintiffs.  It is
unknown when the court will rule on the pending motions.

The company reported no further developments regarding the case
in its Aug. 11, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Owensboro, Kentucky-based Southern Star Central Corp. --
http://www.southernstarcentralcorp.com/-- operates as a holding
company for its regulated pipeline operations and development
opportunities.  Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. is its
only operating subsidiary.  Southern Star also owns the
development rights for Western Frontier, which could be
developed in the future.  The company owns and operate an
approximately 6,000 mile interstate natural gas pipeline and
associated storage facilities in the Midwest, serving customers
in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and parts of Colorado, Nebraska,
Wyoming, and Texas.


SOUTHERN STAR: Court Yet to Allow Intervenor in "Price II" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in Stevens County, Kansas, has yet to rule on
a motion to intervene filed by a third party who is claiming
entitlement to a portion of any recovery obtained by the
plaintiffs in Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et
al., Case No. 03 C 23 ("Price Litigation II").

The putative class-action suit was filed on May 12, 2003.  The
named plaintiffs from Price Litigation I have sued the same
defendants.

The plaintiffs in Price Litigation I sued over 50 defendants,
including Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.

Asserting substantially identical legal and equitable theories,
as in Price Litigation I, this petition alleges that the
defendants have undermeasured the British thermal units, or BTU,
content of, and therefore have underpaid for, the natural gas
they have obtained from or measured for the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to plead
for punitive damages.

On Nov. 10, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf
of Central.

The plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification, along with
the plaintiffs' second class certification motion in Price
Litigation I, was fully briefed and the court heard oral
argument on this motion on April 1, 2005.

In January 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to
intervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement to
a portion of any recovery obtained by the plaintiffs.  It is
unknown when the court will rule on the pending motions.

The company reported no further developments regarding the case
in its Aug. 11, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Owensboro, Kentucky-based Southern Star Central Corp. --
http://www.southernstarcentralcorp.com/-- operates as a holding
company for its regulated pipeline operations and development
opportunities.  Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. is its
only operating subsidiary.  Southern Star also owns the
development rights for Western Frontier, which could be
developed in the future.  The company owns and operate an
approximately 6,000 mile interstate natural gas pipeline and
associated storage facilities in the Midwest, serving customers
in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and parts of Colorado, Nebraska,
Wyoming, and Texas.


TELLABS INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in Johnson, et al. v. Tellabs Inc, et al.,
f/k/a/ Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc., Case No. 02-
cv-04356 (N.D. Ill.) (St. Eve, J.).

The class action complaint was filed on June 18, 2002, against
Tellabs, Michael Birck (Chairman of the Board of Tellabs) and
Richard Notebaert (former CEO, President and Director of
Tellabs), according to the company's Aug. 11, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 3, 2009.

Thereafter, eight similar complaints were filed.  All nine of
these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on Dec. 3,
2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class
period, Dec. 11, 2000-June 19, 2001, the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements, including, among other things, allegedly providing
revenue forecasts that were false and misleading, misrepresenting
demand for our products, and reporting overstated revenue for the
fourth quarter 2000 in our financial statements.  Further,
certain of the individual defendants were alleged to have
violated the federal securities laws by trading our securities
while allegedly in possession of material, non-public information
about us pertaining to these matters.  The consolidated amended
complaint seeks unspecified restitution, damages and other
relief.

On Jan. 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint
in its entirety. On May 19, 2003, the Court granted the company's
motion and dismissed all counts of the consolidated amended
complaint, while affording plaintiffs an opportunity to replead.

On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and
Notebaert, and many, although not all, of the other previously
named individual defendants, realleging claims similar to those
contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class
action complaint.  The company filed a second motion to dismiss
on Aug. 22, 2003, seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all
claims alleged in the second consolidated amended class action
complaint.

On Feb. 19, 2004, the Court issued an order granting that motion
and dismissed the action with prejudice.  On March 18, 2004, the
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Federal
Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit, appealing the dismissal.

The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument was heard on Jan.
21, 2005.  On Jan. 25, 2006, the Seventh Circuit issued an
opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of
the district court, and remanding for further proceedings.

On Feb. 8, 2006, defendants filed with the Seventh Circuit a
petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc.  On
April 19, 2006, the Seventh Circuit ordered plaintiffs to file an
answer to the petition for rehearing, which was filed by the
plaintiffs on May 3, 2006.  On July 10, 2006, the Seventh Circuit
denied the petition for rehearing with a minor modification to
its opinion, and remanded the case to the district court.

On Sept. 22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the district
court to dismiss some, but not all, of the remaining claims.  On
Oct. 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the United States Supreme
Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to appeal the
Seventh Circuit's decision.  On Jan. 5, 2007, the defendants'
petition was granted.

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 28,
2007.  On June 21, 2007, the United States Supreme Court vacated
the Seventh Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  On Nov. 1, 2007, the Seventh Circuit heard oral
arguments for the remanded case.  On Jan. 17, 2008, the Seventh
Circuit issued an opinion adhering to its earlier opinion
reversing in part the judgment of the district court, and
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

On Feb. 24, 2009, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  The case is now proceeding in the
district court and discovery is ongoing.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Richard H. Weiss, Esq.
          MILBERG WEISS LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: 212-946-9304
          Fax: 212-273-4401
          E-mail: rweiss@milbergweiss.com

Representing the defendants is:

          David F. Graham, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-853-7000
          E-mail: dgraham@sidley.com


TELLABS INC: "Brieger" Plaintiffs File Notice of Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal from the judgment
entered in Brieger v. Tellabs, Inc., Case No. 06-cv-_____ (N.D.
Ill.), in favor of Tellabs, Inc., according to the company's Aug.
11, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2009.

The class action complaint was filed on April 5, 2006, against
the company, Michael Birck, Richard Notebaert and current or
former Tellabs employees who, during the alleged class period of
Dec. 11, 2000, to July 1, 2003, participated on the Tellabs
Investment and Administrative Committees of the Tellabs, Inc.
Profit Sharing and Savings Plan.  Thereafter, two similar
complaints were filed in the United States District Court of the
Northern District of Illinois.

The complaints allege that during the alleged class period, the
defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act by, among other things,
continuing to offer Tellabs common stock as a Plan investment
option when it was imprudent to do so and allegedly
misrepresenting and failing to disclose material information
necessary for Plan participants to make informed decisions
concerning the Plan.  Further, certain of the defendants
allegedly failed to monitor the fiduciary activities of the
fiduciaries they appointed and certain of the defendants
allegedly breached their duty of loyalty by trading Tellabs
stock, while taking no protective action on behalf of Plan
participants.  The complaints seek unspecified restitution,
damages and other relief.

On June 28, 2006, the Court consolidated all three actions and on
Aug. 14, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint.  On Sept. 15, 2006, defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment seeking the
dismissal with prejudice of all claims in the consolidated
amended class action complaint.

On Feb. 13, 2007, the court denied defendants' motion and on
April 17, 2007, denied Tellabs' motion for leave to certify an
issue for interlocutory appeal to the United States Federal Court
of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit.

Plaintiffs moved to certify a class, discovery was conducted to
determine the propriety of class certification, and Tellabs
opposed class certification.  On Sept. 20, 2007, the court
granted plaintiff's motion to certify a class.

The trial started on April 13, 2009, and ended on May 8, 2009.  
On June 1, 2009, the court entered judgment in favor of Tellabs
on all claims.  The Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on July
1, 2009.


UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: Sued For Favoring Applicants with Clout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that the
University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana favors applicants with
political clout over good students, a class action claims in
Federal Court. The class claims the university rejected qualified
students, but accepted unqualified ones who have relations with
politicians and other "very important" people -- and even kept a
"clout list" for a decade.

The class claims that between 1999 and 2009 the university
maintained a "clout list," also known as a "Category I" list, of
students who were admitted because of their political
connections, though they had lower exam scores and class ranks
than other applicants.

The university claims its admission criteria includes a strong
academic record, competitive test scores, leadership and
communication skills, but does not mention political connections,
the class says. It adds that students are pay a $40 application
fee, but are not told that their chance of admission is
diminished if they lack clout.

"Politically appointed trustees and lawmakers routinely behave as
armchair admissions officers advocating on behalf of relatives
and neighbors -- even housekeepers' kids and families with whom
they share Hawaiian vacations . . . They declare their candidates
'no brainers' for admission and suggest that if they are not
accepted, the admission system may need revamping," according to
the complaint.

Named plaintiff Jonathon Yard says his application to enter in
the fall of 2008 was rejected though he scored a 29 on the ACT,
ranked in the top 15 percent of his class, "was a varsity athlete
and participated in extracurricular activities."

A Chicago Tribune article reported this year that unqualified
Category I applicants were admitted to UI even after admissions
officers protested.

The class claims that Category I people were allowed to appeal
rejections, "which often resulted in reconsideration of their
application and ultimately, admission to the university."

The class claims other applicants were not even aware they could
appeal, and that the university does not actually have an
"official appeals process."

The class says the university also granted law school admissions
in exchange for law firm jobs for its students.

The class seeks actual and punitive damages for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, fraud and denial of equal
protection.

A copy of the Complaint in Yard v. The University of Illinois at
Champaign-Urbana, et al., Case No. 09-cv-06584 (N.D. Ill.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/23/Clout.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry D. Drury, Esq.
          James R. Rowe, Esq.
          LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
          205 West Randolph, Suite 1430
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 346-7950

               - and -  

          Dennis R. Atteberry, Esq.
          220 West Main Cross
          Taylorville, IL 62568-2248
          Telephone: (217) 824-3131


USANA HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Chirco" Suit in Nevada Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Usana Health Sciences Inc. continues to defend a purported class
action lawsuit filed with the State District Court in Clark
County, Nevada, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 4, 2009.

In April 2009, Joseph Chirco, a former USANA Associate filed a
purported class action lawsuit and named the company and certain
of its present and former officers and directors, as well as
other individuals, as defendants.

The proposed class consists of distributors who were Nevada
residents at any time since 1995.  The complaint, which is
essentially a copy of a complaint from a purported distributor
class action lawsuit filed against the company in California
state court in 2007, alleges a number of purported material
misrepresentations to the market in violation of state pyramid
law, deceptive business practices, and business fraud law.

The complaint seeks damages, general injunctive relief, pre-
judgment interest, costs, attorney's fees, and other further
relief deemed appropriate by the court.  The company believes the
claims in this complaint are distorted, not actionable under
applicable law, and without merit.

On June 2009, the company filed its answer to the complaint,
which contained a general denial of the allegations in the
complaint and set forth its affirmative defenses.

Based in Salt Lake City, Utah, USANA Health Sciences, Inc. --
http://www.usanahealthsciences.com/-- develops and manufactures  
science-based nutritional and personal care products.  The
company distributes and sells its products internationally
through a network marketing system, which is a form of direct
selling.  Its international markets include Canada, Mexico,
Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan,
Japan, and South Korea, and direct sales from the United States
to customers in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.  The
company distributes and sells its products through a network
marketing system, a form of direct selling, using independent
distributors that it refers to as Associates.  It also sells its
products directly to Preferred Customers who purchase the
Company's products for personal use and are not permitted to
resell or distribute the products.

                            *********

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  * * *