CAR_Public/091102.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 2, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 216
  
                            Headlines

AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Class Certified in Del. Shareholders' Suit
ALLIANZ LIFE: Senior Citizen Fraud Suit Filed in D.C. Super. Ct.
ALLION HEALTHCARE: Shareholders Want H.I.G. Capital To Pay More
AMAZON.COM: Court Okays Settlement Agreement in Audible's Suit
AUTOBYTEL INC: Court Okays Settlement Pact in IPO Litigation

AUTOBYTEL INC: Settlement Agreement in Autoweb.com Suit Okayed
BRISTOL-MYERS: Court to Consider Final OK of Settlement in Dec.
BRISTOL-MYERS: Inks Settlement Pact with Arizona in AWP Lawsuit
BROADCOM CORP: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Calif.
CITY OF NEWARK: Delaware Lawsuit Challenges Landlord Fees

JULIAN/CUYAMACA FIRE: Workers Allege Labor Law Violations
PEP BOYS: N.J. Lawsuit Complains About Add-On Oil Change Fee
REDDY ICE: Plaintiff Has Until Today to File Amended Complaint
REDDY ICE: Antitrust Suits Plaintiffs File Amended Complaints
SUPERVALU INC: Court Okays Settlement in New Albertson Lawsuit

SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Defend "RICO" Violation Suit in Wis.
SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Suit on C&S Wholesale Deal in Wis.
SUPERVALU INC: "Exchange Act" Suit Transferred to D. Minn.
XEROX CORP: Faces Eight Class Suits from ACS Shareholders
XEROX CORP: Shareholders Suit in Connecticut Remains Pending

                            *********

AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Class Certified in Del. Shareholders' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, on Oct. 22, 2009,
granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a
lawsuit against Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., and Xerox
Corp., according to the company's Oct. 22, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Sept. 27, 2009, Xerox Corporation, Boulder Acquisition Corp.,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Xerox, and the company entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger.

Nine lawsuits have been filed in connection with the company's
proposed merger with Boulder Acquisition.

Seven lawsuits were filed in the District and County Courts of
Dallas County, Texas and two lawsuits were filed in Delaware
Chancery Court.

The plaintiffs in each case allege that they are company
stockholders, and they purport to bring a class action on behalf
of all of the company's stockholders.  The lawsuits generally
assert claims of breach of fiduciary duties against members of
the company's board of directors, allegedly aided and abetted by
the company and Xerox.

The plaintiffs allege that the terms of the proposed acquisition
are unfair to the Company's Class A stockholders principally on
the grounds that the consideration offered to the Class A
stockholders is both inadequate and unfairly favorable to the
Chairman of the company, and that the proposed Merger is the
result of an unfair process.

Plaintiffs seek equitable relief, including an injunction against
the proposed merger, and recovery of unspecified monetary damages
allegedly sustained by the stockholders.

On Oct. 7, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court entered an order
consolidating the two cases before it.

On Oct. 22, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court granted the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Based in Dallas, Tex., Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.
(NYSE:ACS) -- http://www.acs-inc.com/-- is a provider of  
business process outsourcing and information technology services
to commercial and government clients.  The Company has two
segments based on the clients it serves: commercial and
government.  The commercial segment accounted for approximately
60% of its revenues during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008
(fiscal 2008).  The Company provides services to a variety of
clients worldwide, including information technology, human
capital management, finance and accounting, customer care,
transaction processing, payment services and commercial
education.  During fiscal 2008, revenues from the government
segment accounted for approximately 40% of the company's
revenues.  The company services its clients through long-term
contracts.  It supports client operations in more than 100
countries.  In March 2009, it acquired e-Services Group
International.  In June 2009, it completed the acquisition of
United Kingdom-based Anix.


ALLIANZ LIFE: Senior Citizen Fraud Suit Filed in D.C. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims
Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America defrauded senior
citizens by selling them deferred annuity products without proper
disclosures, in D.C. Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Ostrow v. Allianz Life Insirance
Company of North America, Civil Action No. _______ (D.C. Super.
Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/28/Insure.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven N. Berk, Esq.
          BERK LAW PLLC
          1225 15th St. NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: 202-232-7550

               - and -  

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          Howard D. Finkelstein, Esq.
          Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
          C. Michael Plavi, II, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101-3579
          Telephone: 619-238-1333


ALLION HEALTHCARE: Shareholders Want H.I.G. Capital To Pay More
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Allion Healthcare
shareholders say the company and its controlling shareholders are
selling out too cheaply to H.I.G. Capital and its subsidiary
Brickell Bay Acquisition Corp., for $278 million or $6.60 a
share, in Delaware Chancery Court.


AMAZON.COM: Court Okays Settlement Agreement in Audible's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
approved a settlement in a securities class-action involving
Amazon.com, Inc.'s subsidiary, Audible, Inc.  

In June 2001, Audible, the company's subsidiary acquired in March
2008, was named as a defendant in a securities class-action filed
in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
related to its initial public offering in July 1999.

The lawsuit also named certain of the offering's underwriters, as
well as Audible's officers and directors as defendants.  
Approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters have had
similar suits filed against them, all of which are included in a
single coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New
York.

The complaints allege that the prospectus and the registration
statement for Audible's offering failed to disclose that the
underwriters allegedly solicited and received "excessive"
commissions from investors and that some investors allegedly
agreed with the underwriters to buy additional shares in the
aftermarket in order to inflate the price of Audible's stock.

Audible and its officers and directors were named in the suits
pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and other related
provisions.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, attorney and expert
fees, and other unspecified litigation costs.

In March 2009, all parties, including Audible, reached a
settlement of these class actions that would resolve this dispute
entirely with no payment required from Audible.

The settlement was approved by the Court in October 2009,
according to Amazon.com's Oct. 22, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.


AUTOBYTEL INC: Court Okays Settlement Pact in IPO Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
gave final approval to the settlement agreement in a purported
class action lawsuit against Autobytel, Inc., according to the
company's Oct. 23, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

In August 2001, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Autobytel and certain of the company's current and former
directors and officers and underwriters involved in the company's
initial public offering.

A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative
complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002.

This action purports to allege violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the Company's initial public offering to
certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.

Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering was false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.
The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  The
parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
Autobytel, the underwriter defendants in the Autobytel class
action lawsuit, and the plaintiff class in the Autobytel class
action lawsuit, reached a settlement.

The insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases
will make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers,
including Autobytel.

On Oct. 6, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.

The time to appeal the final approval decision will expire on
Nov. 5, 2009.

Autobytel, Inc. -- http://www.autobytel.com/-- based in Irvine,  
Calif., is an automotive media and marketing services company
focused on helping dealers sell cars and services, and
manufacturers build brands through marketing and advertising
primarily through the Internet.  The company owns and operates
automotive Websites, including MyRide.com, Autobytel.com,
Autoweb.com, Car.com, CarSmart.com, AutoSite.com and CarTV.com.


AUTOBYTEL INC: Settlement Agreement in Autoweb.com Suit Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement agreement between Autoweb.com, Inc., and
the plaintiffs in a consolidated amended complaint has received
final approval of the court, according to Autobytel, Inc.'s Oct.
23, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Autoweb.com is owned and operated by the Autobytel.

Between April and September 2001, eight separate purported class
actions virtually identical to the one filed against Autobytel
were filed against Autoweb.com, certain of Autoweb's former
directors and officers, and underwriters involved in Autoweb's
initial public offering.

A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative
complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002. It purports to allege
violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act.  
Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in Autoweb's initial public offering to certain
investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions
and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of
stock in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.

Plaintiffs also allege that the prospectus for Autoweb's initial
public offering was false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.
The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  The
parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
Autoweb, the underwriter defendants in the Autoweb class action
lawsuit, and the plaintiff class in the Autoweb class action
lawsuit, reached a settlement.

The insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases
will make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers,
including Autoweb.

On Oct. 6, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.

The time to appeal the final approval decision will expire on
Nov. 5, 2009.

Autobytel, Inc. -- http://www.autobytel.com/-- based in Irvine,  
Calif., is an automotive media and marketing services company
focused on helping dealers sell cars and services, and
manufacturers build brands through marketing and advertising
primarily through the Internet.  The company owns and operates
automotive Websites, including MyRide.com, Autobytel.com,
Autoweb.com, Car.com, CarSmart.com, AutoSite.com and CarTV.com.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Court to Consider Final OK of Settlement in Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District for the Southern District of New York will
schedule a hearing in December 2009, to consider final approval
of the proposed settlement of a putative class action complaint
captioned In Re Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 07-cv-05867, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In June and July 2007, two putative class action complaints,
Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Assoc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co., et al. (07 CV 5867) and Jean Lai v. Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company, et al., were filed in the U.S. District for the Southern
District of New York against the company, the company's former
Chief Executive Officer, Peter Dolan and former Chief Financial
Officer, Andrew Bonfield.

The complaints allege violations of securities laws for allegedly
failing to disclose material information relating to efforts to
settle the PLAVIX* patent infringement litigation with Apotex.

On Sept. 20, 2007, the Court dismissed the Lai case without
prejudice, changed the caption of the case to In re Bristol-Myers
Squibb, Co. Securities Litigation, and appointed Ontario
Teachers' Pension Plan Board as lead plaintiff.

On Oct. 15, 2007, Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board filed an
amended complaint making similar allegations as the earlier filed
complaints, naming an additional former officer but no longer
naming Andrew Bonfield as a defendant.

By decision dated August 20, 2008, the federal district court
denied defendants' motions to dismiss.

In May 2009, the parties reached a settlement in principle to
resolve this litigation for payment of $125 million.

In August 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval
of the settlement.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company -- http://www.bms.com/-- is engaged  
in the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing,
marketing, distribution and sale of pharmaceutical and
nutritional products.  The company had two segments:
Pharmaceuticals and Nutritionals.  The Pharmaceuticals segment is
made up of the global pharmaceutical and international consumer
medicines business.  The Nutritionals segment consists of Mead
Johnson Nutritionals (Mead Johnson), primarily an infant formula
and children's nutritionals business.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Inks Settlement Pact with Arizona in AWP Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
scheduled a February 2009 hearing to consider final approval of
the proposed settlement between Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and the
state of Arizona, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class
actions as well as suits brought by the attorneys general of
various states.

In these actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants caused the
Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their products to be inflated,
thereby injuring government programs, entities and persons who
reimbursed prescription drugs based on AWPs.  The company remains
a defendant in four state attorneys general suits pending in
state courts around the country.

One set of class actions, together with a suit by the Arizona
attorney general, were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts (AWP MDL).

In August 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval
of a proposed settlement of the AWP MDL plaintiffs' claims
against the Company for $19 million, plus half the costs of class
notice up to a maximum payment of $1 million.

A final approval hearing is currently scheduled for February
2010.

Additionally, in August 2009, the Company settled the AWP lawsuit
filed by the state of Arizona for an amount that is not material
to the Company.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company -- http://www.bms.com/-- is engaged  
in the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing,
marketing, distribution and sale of pharmaceutical and
nutritional products.  The company had two segments:
Pharmaceuticals and Nutritionals.  The Pharmaceuticals segment is
made up of the global pharmaceutical and international consumer
medicines business.  The Nutritionals segment consists of Mead
Johnson Nutritionals (Mead Johnson), primarily an infant formula
and children's nutritionals business.


BROADCOM CORP: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Corp. continues to defend purported shareholder class
actions filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

From August through October 2006 several plaintiffs filed
purported shareholder class actions against Broadcom and certain
of its current or former officers and directors, known as the
Options Class Actions:

     -- Bakshi v. Samueli, et al. (Case No. 06-5036 R (CWx)),

     -- Mills v. Samueli, et al. (Case No. SACV 06-9674 DOC
        R(CWx)), and

     -- Minnesota Bakers Union Pension Fund, et al. v. Broadcom
        Corp., et al. (Case No. SACV 06-970 CJC R (CWx))

The essence of the plaintiffs' allegations is that the company
improperly backdated stock options, resulting in false or
misleading disclosures concerning, among other things, its
business and financial condition.

Plaintiffs also allege that the company failed to account for and
pay taxes on stock options properly, that the individual
defendants sold the company's common stock while in possession of
material nonpublic information, and that the defendants' conduct
caused artificial inflation in its stock price and damages to the
putative plaintiff class.

The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

In November 2006 the Court consolidated the Options Class Actions
and appointed the New Mexico State Investment Council as lead
class plaintiff.  In October 2007 the federal appeals court
resolved a dispute regarding the appointment of lead class
counsel.


In March 2008 the district judge entered a revised order
appointing lead class counsel.  The lead plaintiff filed an
amended consolidated class action complaint in late April 2008,
naming additional defendants including certain current officers
and directors of Broadcom as well as Ernst & Young LLP, the
company's former independent registered public accounting firm,
or E&Y.

In October 2008 the district judge granted defendants' motions to
dismiss with leave to amend.

In October 2008 the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

In November 2008 defendants filed motions to dismiss.

On Feb. 2, 2009 these motions were denied except with respect to
E&Y and the former Chairman of the Audit Committee, which were
granted with leave to amend, and with respect to the former Chief
Executive Officer, which was granted without leave to amend.

The lead plaintiff did not amend its complaint with respect to
the former Chairman of the Audit Committee and the time period to
do so has expired.  With respect to E&Y, in March 2009 the
district judge entered a final judgment for E&Y and against the
lead plaintiff.

The suit is Bakshi v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 06-cv-05036 (C.D.
Calif.) (Real, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Bryan L. Crawford, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON
          3550 IDS Center
          80 South 8th St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-338-4605
          Fax: 612-338-4692

Representing the defendants are:

          Gordon A. Greenberg, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
          2049 Century Park E., 34th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208
          Phone: 310-277-4110
          Fax: 310-277-4730

               - and -

          Stephen S. Hasegawa, Esq.
          IRELL & MANELLA
          1800 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
          Phone: 310-277-1010
          E-mail: shasegawa@irell.com


CITY OF NEWARK: Delaware Lawsuit Challenges Landlord Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims
Newark, Del.'s $300 annual charge per dwelling unit for rental
properties is 10 times more than other college towns charge, and
far more than is needed to cover the administration and
enforcement of the program, in Delaware Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Harvey, et ux., et al. v. City of
Newark, Case No. 5023 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/28/Govt.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Candice Toll Aaron, Esq.
          Michael DeNote, Esq.
          SAUL EWING LLP
          222 Delaware Ave., Suite 1200
          P.O. Box 1266
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: 302-421-6800

               - and -  

          David R. Moffitt, Esq.
          SAUL EQING LLP
          1200 Liberty Ridge Drive, Suite 200
          Wayne, PA 19087-5569
          Telephone: 610-251-5758

               - and -  

          Ronald M. Agulnick, Esq.
          RONALD M. AGULNICK, LLC
          931 North Hill Drive
          West Chester, PA 19380
          Telephone: 610-696-4280


JULIAN/CUYAMACA FIRE: Workers Allege Labor Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Julian/Cuyamaca Fire
Protection District faces a class-action overtime complaint in
San Diego Federal Court.


PEP BOYS: N.J. Lawsuit Complains About Add-On Oil Change Fee
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Pep Boys defrauds
customers by advertising a $19.99 oil change, but adding a "shop
fee" of more than 10 percent, a class action claims in Trenton,
N.J. Federal Court.  The class claims Pep Boys ads have
deceptive, small-print disclaimers stating, "Shop supply fee may
apply," though "it knows that every store . . . will certainly"
charge that fee.


REDDY ICE: Plaintiff Has Until Today to File Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in a purported class action against Reddy Ice
Holdings, Inc. has until today, Nov. 2, 2009, to file a
consolidated amended complaint with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, according to the company's Oct.
22, 2009, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Beginning on Aug. 8, 2008, purported class action complaints have
been filed asserting claims under the federal securities laws
against the company and certain of its current or former senior
officers.

The complaints, which are substantially similar, allege that the
defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose the existence
of, and its alleged participation in, an alleged antitrust
conspiracy in the packaged ice industry.  The complaints purport
to assert claims on behalf of various alleged classes of
purchasers of the company's common stock.

Two motions for consolidation of the three actions and for
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel were
filed on Oct. 7, 2008.  Thereafter, one of the two proposed lead
plaintiffs withdrew his motion.

On July 17, 2009, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff and interim lead plaintiff's counsel.

Pursuant to a revised scheduling order filed on Oct. 14, 2009,
the lead plaintiff is required to file a consolidated amended
complaint on or before Nov. 2, 2009.

The company is required to file a response to that consolidated
amended complaint on or before December 17, 2009.

Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/--  
manufactures and distributes packaged ice in the United States.  
The company serves variety of customers in 31 states and the
District of Columbia under the Reddy Ice brand name. Its
principal product is ice packaged in seven to 50 pound bags,
which it sells to a diversified customer base, including
supermarkets, mass merchants and convenience stores.  As of March
6, 2009, the company owned or operated 58 ice manufacturing
facilities, 67 distribution centers and approximately 3,100 Ice
Factories.


REDDY ICE: Antitrust Suits Plaintiffs File Amended Complaints
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., faces a consolidated amended complaint
in the multidistrict proceedings pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Following the announcement that the Antitrust Division of the
Department of Justice had instituted an investigation of the
packaged ice industry, a number of lawsuits, including putative
class action lawsuits, were filed in various federal courts in
multiple jurisdictions alleging violations of federal and state
antitrust laws and related claims and seeking damages and
injunctive relief.

Pursuant to an Order from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the civil actions pending in federal courts have been
transferred and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.


On June 1, 2009, the Court appointed interim lead and liaison
counsel for the putative direct and indirect purchaser classes.

On July 17, 2009 the Court entered a case management order
requiring the lead plaintiffs for each class to file a
consolidated amended complaint within 60 days of the order, and
providing 45 days for the defendants to respond to the direct
purchaser consolidated amended complaint and 60 days for the
defendants to respond to the indirect purchaser consolidated
amended complaint.

On Sept. 15, 2009, the lead plaintiffs for each of the putative
direct and indirect purchaser classes filed consolidated amended
complaints.

Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/--  
manufactures and distributes packaged ice in the United States.  
The company serves variety of customers in 31 states and the
District of Columbia under the Reddy Ice brand name. Its
principal product is ice packaged in seven to 50 pound bags,
which it sells to a diversified customer base, including
supermarkets, mass merchants and convenience stores.  As of March
6, 2009, the company owned or operated 58 ice manufacturing
facilities, 67 distribution centers and approximately 3,100 Ice
Factories.


SUPERVALU INC: Court Okays Settlement in New Albertson Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California, on
Oct. 14, 2009, gave its final approval on the settlement entered
into by the parties in a consolidated class action suit,
according to Supervalu, Inc.'s Oct. 21, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 12, 2009.

In April 2000, a class action complaint was filed against
Albertsons, as well as American Stores Company, American Drug
Stores, Inc., Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. and Lucky Stores, Inc.,
wholly-owned subsidiaries of Albertsons, in the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles, California (Gardner, et al. v.
American Stores Company, et al.) by assistant managers seeking
recovery of overtime based on the plaintiffs' allegation that
they were improperly classified as exempt under California law.

In May 2001, the Court certified a class with respect to Sav-on
Drug Stores assistant managers.  A case with very similar claims,
involving the Sav-on Drug Stores assistant managers and operating
managers, was also filed in April 2000 against Sav-on Drug Stores
in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California
(Rocher, Dahlin, et al. v. Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc.), and was
certified as a class action in June 2001 with respect to
assistant managers and operating managers.
The two cases were consolidated in December 2001.

New Albertson's Inc. was added as a named defendant in November
2006.  New Albertson's was acquired by the company on June 2,
2006.

Plaintiffs seek overtime wages, meal and rest break penalties,
other statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest, injunctive
relief and the attorneys' fees and costs.

In February 2009, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of this matter and agreed to a
settlement.

Supervalu Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is one of the  
largest companies in the U.S. grocery channel with estimated
annual sales of $41 billion.  SUPERVALU serves customers across
the United States through a network of approximately 4,300 stores
composed of approximately 1,200 traditional and premium stores,
including 850 in-store pharmacies; 1,180 hard discount Save-A-Lot
stores, of which 860 are operated by licensee owners; and 1,920
independent stores serviced primarily by the company's
traditional food distribution business.  SUPERVALU has
approximately 170,000 employees.


SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Defend "RICO" Violation Suit in Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu, Inc. continues to defend a class action complaint
filed with the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, according to the company's Oct. 21, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 12, 2009.

In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC,
Inmar, Inc., Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc., Carolina
Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services.

The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company
who allege on behalf of a purported class that the company and
the other defendants:

     (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon processing
         services under the Sherman Act and

    (ii) were part of an illegal enterprise to defraud the
         plaintiffs under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and
         Corrupt Organizations Act.

The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief.

All proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result
of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of
International Outsourcing Services.

Supervalu Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is one of the  
largest companies in the U.S. grocery channel with estimated
annual sales of $41 billion.  SUPERVALU serves customers across
the United States through a network of approximately 4,300 stores
composed of approximately 1,200 traditional and premium stores,
including 850 in-store pharmacies; 1,180 hard discount Save-A-Lot
stores, of which 860 are operated by licensee owners; and 1,920
independent stores serviced primarily by the company's
traditional food distribution business.  SUPERVALU has
approximately 170,000 employees.


SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Suit on C&S Wholesale Deal in Wis.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. continues to defend a class action complaint over
an alleged deal with C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., according to
the company's Oct. 21, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
12, 2009.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against the
company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the company and
C&S Wholesale was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate
markets.

In the 2003 transaction, the company purchased certain assets of
the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's
bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain assets of the company to
C&S which were located in New England.

Since December 2008, two other retailers have filed similar
complaints in other jurisdictions.
Consolidation of the cases is currently pending before the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

The complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and
continued through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation
agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities
that the Company and C&S purchased from the other.  Plaintiffs
are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys'
fees.

On Sept. 14, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission issued a
subpoena to the company requesting documents related to the C&S
transaction as part of the FTC's investigation into whether the
company and C&S engaged in unfair methods of competition.  The
Company is cooperating with the FTC.

Supervalu Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is one of the  
largest companies in the U.S. grocery channel with estimated
annual sales of $41 billion.  SUPERVALU serves customers across
the United States through a network of approximately 4,300 stores
composed of approximately 1,200 traditional and premium stores,
including 850 in-store pharmacies; 1,180 hard discount Save-A-Lot
stores, of which 860 are operated by licensee owners; and 1,920
independent stores serviced primarily by the company's
traditional food distribution business.  SUPERVALU has
approximately 170,000 employees.


SUPERVALU INC: "Exchange Act" Suit Transferred to D. Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action complaint filed against Supervalu Inc.
has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota.

In July 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the company, an officer and the Executive Chairman
of the Board alleging fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 under
the Exchange Act.

In October 2009, the lawsuit was transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The complaint alleges that the Company withheld negative
information from the market by inflating its fiscal 2010 guidance
in order to complete the company's note offering which closed on
May 7, 2009.

The purported class period runs between April 23, 2009 and June
23, 2009.

Plaintiff is seeking class certification, monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

All discovery is currently stayed.

Supervalu Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is one of the  
largest companies in the U.S. grocery channel with estimated
annual sales of $41 billion.  SUPERVALU serves customers across
the United States through a network of approximately 4,300 stores
composed of approximately 1,200 traditional and premium stores,
including 850 in-store pharmacies; 1,180 hard discount Save-A-Lot
stores, of which 860 are operated by licensee owners; and 1,920
independent stores serviced primarily by the company's
traditional food distribution business.  SUPERVALU has
approximately 170,000 employees.


XEROX CORP: Faces Eight Class Suits from ACS Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corp. faces eight purported class action complaints
resulting from its proposed merger with Affiliated Computer
Services, Inc., according to the company's Oct. 22, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In late September and early October 2009, nine purported class
action complaints were filed by Affiliated Computer Services,
Inc. shareholders challenging ACS's proposed merger with Xerox.

Two actions filed in state court in Delaware were subsequently
consolidated into one action.

Seven actions were filed in state courts in Texas.

The complaints in all actions name as defendants ACS and/or
various members of ACS's board of directors and Xerox
Corporation.

The complaints in six of the actions also name Boulder
Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Xerox, as a
defendant.

The plaintiffs generally allege that:

     (i) the members of ACS's board of directors breached their
         fiduciary duties to ACS and its shareholders by
         authorizing the sale of ACS to Xerox for what
         plaintiffs deem inadequate consideration;

    (ii) ACS breached and/or aided and abetted the other
         defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties; and

   (iii) Xerox and Boulder Acquisition Corp. aided and abetted
         the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by ACS and its
         directors.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin the defendants
from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms, and
unspecified compensatory damages, together with the costs and
disbursements of the action.

The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware action, now captioned
In re ACS Shareholder Litigation, have filed a motion for class
certification.

Certain of the Texas plaintiffs have moved to transfer,
consolidate and coordinate all of the actions pending in Texas.

Xerox Corporation -- http://www.xerox.com/-- is engaged in  
developing, manufacturing, marketing, servicing and financing a
range of document equipments, software, solutions and services.  
Digital systems include printing and publishing systems; digital
presses, advanced and basic multifunctional devices (MFD's),
which can print, copy, scan and fax; digital copiers; laser and
solid ink printers, and fax machines.  The company provides
software and workflow solutions with which businesses can print
books, create personalized documents for their customers, and
scan and route digital information. Xerox also offers software,
support and supplies, such as toner, paper and ink.  


XEROX CORP: Shareholders Suit in Connecticut Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corp. continues to defend a consolidated securities law
action alleging violation of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A consolidated securities law action, consisting of 17 cases, is
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut.  Defendants are the company, Barry Romeril, Paul
Allaire and G. Richard Thoman.

The consolidated action is a class action on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased Xerox Corporation common stock
during the period Oct. 22, 1998 through Oct. 7, 1999 inclusive
and who suffered a loss as a result of misrepresentations or
omissions by Defendants as alleged by Plaintiffs.

The Class alleges that in violation of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule
10b-5 thereunder, each of the defendants is liable as a
participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the Class Period by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealing material facts
relating to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose the
material negative impact that the April 1998 restructuring had on
the company's operations and revenues.

The complaint further alleges that the alleged scheme:

     (i) deceived the investing public regarding the economic
         capabilities, sales proficiencies, growth, operations
         and the intrinsic value of the company's common stock;

    (ii) allowed several corporate insiders, such as the named
         individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held
         common stock of the company while in possession of
         materially adverse, non-public information; and

   (iii) caused the individual plaintiffs and the other members
         of the purported class to purchase common stock of the
         company at inflated prices.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages in favor of
the plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class
against all defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages
sustained as a result of defendants' alleged wrongdoing,
including interest thereon, together with reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in the action, including counsel fees and
expert fees.

In 2001, the Court denied the defendants' motion for dismissal of
the complaint.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied by the
Court in 2006, without prejudice to refiling.

In February 2007, the Court granted the motion of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Welfare Fund of
Local Union No. 164, Robert W. Roten, Robert Agius and Georgia
Stanley to appoint them as additional lead plaintiffs.

In July 2007, the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for
class certification, without prejudice to renewal after the Court
holds a pre-filing conference to identify factual disputes the
Court will be required to resolve in ruling on the motion.

After that conference and Agius's withdrawal as lead plaintiff
and proposed class representative, in February 2008 plaintiffs
filed a second renewed motion for class certification.

In April 2008, defendants filed their response and motion to
disqualify Milberg LLP as a lead counsel.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the Court entered an order certifying the
class and denying the appointment of Milberg LLP as class
counsel.  Subsequently, on April 9, 2009, the Court denied
defendants' motion to disqualify Milberg LLP.

The parties have filed motions to exclude certain expert
testimony.

On Nov. 6, 2008, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment.  Briefing with respect to each of these motions is
complete.

On April 22, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' motions to
exclude the testimony of two of defendants' experts.  The Court
has not yet rendered decisions regarding the other pending
motions.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 22, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Xerox Corporation -- http://www.xerox.com/-- is engaged in  
developing, manufacturing, marketing, servicing and financing a
range of document equipments, software, solutions and services.  
Digital systems include printing and publishing systems; digital
presses, advanced and basic multifunctional devices (MFD's),
which can print, copy, scan and fax; digital copiers; laser and
solid ink printers, and fax machines.  The company provides
software and workflow solutions with which businesses can print
books, create personalized documents for their customers, and
scan and route digital information. Xerox also offers software,
support and supplies, such as toner, paper and ink.  

                            *********

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  * * *