CAR_Public/091110.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 10, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 222
  
                            Headlines

AIG: Nov. 12 Fairness Hearing Scheduled In PPO Class Action Case
AMERICAN CORRECTIVE: Paying $2.55 Mil. to Settle Pa. Class Suit
ADAMS GOLF: Settles 1999 Securities Lawsuit for $16.5 Million
BANK OF AMERICA: Plaintiff Firm Explains eWorkplace Manipulation
BANKATLANTIC: Higer Lichter Files Suit Challenging Overdraft Fees

BRITISH COLUMBIA: Civil Servants Appeal Class Action Denial
DIRECTBUY INC: Milberg Files Consumer Fraud Suit in S.D. Ind.
DIRECTV INC: Calif. App. Ct. Rejects Class Certification
DIRECTV INC: Judge Pannell Denies DireTV's Arbitration Pitch
EASTERN HEALTH: Settles Breast Cancer Test Claims for $17.5 Mil.

FIRST CITY: Retirees Encouraged to Claim Class Action Benefits
FORD MOTOR CREDIT: Md. App. Ct. Upholds Class Certification
IONIA, MICHIGAN: Flood Victims Turn Eyes to City for Compensation
JEFFERSON AT EDGEWATER: Framingham, Mass., Tenants Sue Again
KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Dec. 9 Deadline for Chinese Drywall Claims

LJ INTERNATIONAL: Got Final Okay of $2 Mil. Settlement on Oct. 19
MASSEY ENERGY: Settles Age Discrimination Suit for $8.75 Million
NASHVILLE SCHOOLS: Class Action Status Sought in Rezoning Suit
ONLINE TRAVEL: Texas Cities Win $20 Mil. Verdict for Unpaid Taxes
PACIFIC GAS: Accused of Negligence & Fraud in SmartMeter Program

PULTE HOMES: Hagens Berman Continues Home Sale Practices Probe
QUEST SOFTWARE: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Suit for $29.4 Mil.
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Responds to Suit Over Levine's Buy-Out Offer
STATE STREET: Judge Holwell Gives Nod to $89.75 ERISA Settlement
STATE STREET: Cohen Milstein Investigating F/X Practices

TIMBERCORP LTD: Faces Another Class Action Suit in Australia
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Doral Bank Files Class Action Suit in Seattle
XFONE INC: Plaintiff Withdraws Israeli Class Action Lawsuit
ZALE CORP: SEC Investigating & Class-Action Suit in the Works

* Chartis Offering Class Action Litigation Insurance to Schools
* ABA to Examine Class Actions in D.C. Seminar on Fri., Nov. 20

                       New Securities Fraud Suits

IMMERSION CORP: Murray Frank Files Shareholder Suit in N.D. Cal.
PROSHARES: Gilman and Pastor Files Two S.D.N.Y. Shareholder Suits
R.H. DONNELLEY: Coughlin Files D&O Fraud Suit in Delaware
THE9 LTD: Coughlin Stoia Files Shareholder Complaint in S.D.N.Y.

                            *********

AIG: Nov. 12 Fairness Hearing Scheduled In PPO Class Action Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at The Madison County Record reports that a fairness
hearing is scheduled in one of the numerous 2005 class action
suits filed in Madison County over improper preferred provider
organization discounts taken from claims filed by chiropractors
and other health care professionals.

The lead plaintiff in the case, Dr. Richard Coy and his
chiropractic center, are also lead plaintiffs in other nearly
identical class actions cases filed in 2005, including one that
has been the subject of several hotly contested fairness
hearings.

Dr. Coy's case against AIG and its claims and marketing
departments, along with National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, has settled and attorneys in the case have asked for
a fairness hearing on the settlement.  That hearing is scheduled
for Nov. 12 at 1:30 p.m., according to an Aug. 12 order signed by
Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack.

Judge Stack also is overseeing a nearly identical class action
with Coy as a lead plaintiff against First Health Insurance
Company.

The settlement of the First Health case has been contested by
class member Kathleen Roche of Swansea.  To date, Judge Stack has
not entered an order approving the First Health settlement.

Details of the AIG settlement were not available in the case's
current filings, Ms. Flood relates.

According to the first amended complaint in the AIG suit, the
company allegedly took improper PPO discounts from workers'
compensation and other claims filed by Coy and other health care
providers.

The suit seeks damages of not more than $75,000 per class member,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Dr. Coy has sued on the grounds of unjust enrichment, the
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, civil conspiracy and breach of contract.

Dr. Coy and the class are represented by:

          Timothy Campbell, Esq.,
          LakinChapman LLC
          300 Evans Ave.
          PO Box 229
          Wood River, IL 62095
          Telephone: 618-208-4240

The defendants are represented by Robert Shultz, Esq., and
others.

The case is Madison case number 05-L-150.


AMERICAN CORRECTIVE: Paying $2.55 Mil. to Settle Pa. Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Nephin at The Associated Press reports that a California debt
collection company has agreed to pay $2.55 million to settle a
lawsuit brought by thousands of Pennsylvanians who claim they
were wrongly led to believe they had to pay costly fees to avoid
criminal charges for bouncing checks.

American Corrective Counseling Services admits no wrongdoing as
part of the settlement approved last week in bankruptcy court in
Delaware.

The company sent letters purporting to be from various
Pennsylvania district attorneys' offices to people who bounced
checks.

The letters indicated that a crime had been committed because the
checks bounced. But the letters say that the check bouncers would
avoid penalty by paying off the checks and various fees and by
attending a financial accountability class.

A company attorney declined Mr. Nephin's request for comment.


ADAMS GOLF: Settles 1999 Securities Lawsuit for $16.5 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adams Golf (Nasdaq:ADGF) has agreed to settle and resolve a the
stockholder class action lawsuit captioned Shockley, et al. v.
Adams Golf Inc., et al., Case No. 99-cv-00371 (D. Del.) (Jordan,
J.), related to the company's initial public offering.  

The settling parties have entered into a memorandum of
understanding and have agreed to submit a binding settlement
agreement to the Court in the coming weeks to resolve this matter
against all defendants. The class action settlement will be
subject to Court approval.

The settlement provides for a payment to the class of $16.5
million, of which Adams Golf has agreed to contribute $5.0
million. Adams Golf is being forced to contribute this $5.0
million because one of its former insurers refused to contribute
to the settlement based on the alleged late notice of the claim.
Adams Golf has commenced litigation against this former insurer
and against its former insurance broker. The settlement will also
require Adams Golf to pay to the class action plaintiffs the
first $1.25 million of any recovery, net of fees and expenses,
that Adams Golf receives from the ongoing litigation with its
former insurance carrier and insurance broker. If approved by the
Court, the settlement will lead to a dismissal of all defendants
in the litigation, including the release of Adams Golf from its
agreement to indemnify the underwriters of its initial public
offering.

"This case had dragged on for 10 years and I believe was a
detriment to shareholder value because of the uncertainty it
created," said Chip Brewer, CEO and President of Adams Golf.

"While we continue to believe that Adams Golf did not violate the
securities laws in the conduct of its initial public offering, we
are also realists concerning the inherent risks of our legal
system and thus are pleased to put this issue behind us. In the
long term, I am optimistic that this solution will enhance
shareholder value as well as our company's competitiveness by
refocusing management's attention on strengthening our product
and customer bases."

Adams Golf expects to incur a $5.0 million charge in the quarter
ended September 30, 2009, associated with the settlement
resulting from the open layer of insurance coverage.

Developing high-performance and technologically innovative golf
products is the cornerstone of Adams Golf.  From the initial
design, through manufacturing and servicing, Adams Golf --
http://www.adamsgolf.com/-- is committed to helping golfers of  
all abilities enjoy the game of golf.

In this case, the Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
         ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT, GROSS & GODDESS
         Citizens Bank Center, Suite 1401
         P.O. Box 1070
         Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
         Telephone: 302-656-4433

and the Defendants are represented by:

         Kevin G. Abrams, Esq.
         ABRAMS & LASTER, LLP
         Brandywine Plaza West
         1521 Concord Pike, #303
         Wilmington, DE 19803
         Telephone: 302-778-1000

               - and -  

         Jeffrey L. Moyer, Esq.
         RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER
         One Rodney Square
         P.O. Box 551
         Wilmington, DE 19899
         Telephone: 302-651-7700

              - and -

         John E. James, Esq.
         POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON, LLP
         Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr.
         1313 N. Market St.
         P.O. Box 951
         Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
         Telephone: 302-984-6000
      

BANK OF AMERICA: Plaintiff Firm Explains eWorkplace Manipulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
As reported in yesterday's edition of the Class Action Reporter,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP and Donelon, P.C., filed Schreiber v.
Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 09-cv-01336 (D. Kan.), on behalf
of telephone-dedicated employees for unpaid wages and overtime
worked at company call centers across the country.  The lawsuit
was filed as a collective action, which means that other Bank of
America employees with similar job duties may join the case to
seek their unpaid wages.

The lawsuit alleges that telephone-dedicated call center
employees were required to perform essential preparatory and
related work activities before and after their paid shifts.  
These activities were integral and indispensable for them to
perform their duties. Examples of the alleged unlawful practices
include finding a computer station, retrieving their headsets and
other necessary equipment from their lockers, logging in to a
computer, logging on to BOA's network, opening relevant computer
programs and software applications, reviewing memoranda and
email, and completing other essential tasks. Similar duties were
performed after being required to clock out following their last
call of the day.

All call center employees that are eligible for overtime pay must
submit their timesheets for approval by management.  A
timekeeping system (eWorkplace) is utilized to keep track of all
overtime hours.  The lawsuit alleges that BOA allows managers to
unilaterally modify or decrease time recorded by overtime
eligible associates.  Additionally, BOA allows managers to
instruct overtime eligible associates to modify or decrease their
recorded time before the manager will approve.

The failure to pay employees their earned overtime wages is in
direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA
provides for recovery of unpaid overtime wages, an equal amount
for liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and litigation costs.
Back wages can be sought over either a two- or three-year period
from the date the employee joins the case, depending on whether
the violation is deemed willful. Both present and former
employees of Bank of America, N.A. may participate in the case.

Further questions about the lawsuit should be directed to George
Hanson of Stueve Siegel Hanson at 816-714-7100 or Brendan Donelon
of Donelon, PC at 816-221-7100.

The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be
based solely upon advertisements.

                    About Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP

Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP represents plaintiffs and defendants
nationwide in wage and hour class and collective actions, complex
securities, business, environmental, and product litigation and
trials. Stueve Siegel Hanson employs results-based contingency
fee billing - not hourly billing - to give clients the
flexibility to pursue legal action even when that action wouldn't
ordinarily be cost effective.

                            About Donelon, PC

Donelon, PC is a law practice focused primarily in complex wage
and hour class action claims.


BANKATLANTIC: Higer Lichter Files Suit Challenging Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on November 2, 2009, in Broward
County Circuit Court against BankAtlantic, a federal savings bank
headquartered in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, for allegedly
manipulating the posting dates of consumer debit card and check
transactions to maximize overdrafts on consumers' accounts and
assess overdraft fees and sustained overdraft fees.  The lawsuit
was filed by:

          David H. Lichter, Esq.
          Higer Lichter & Givner LLP
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 402
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 933-9970

on behalf of plaintiffs Joel and Elizabeth Rothman and other
consumers facing similar situations.

According to the lawsuit, the practice of charging overdraft fees
started years ago, before electronic transactions, when customers
wrote paper checks on accounts having insufficient funds and
banks processed and covered the checks for good customers as a
service to facilitate purchases. In this day of debit cards,
however, such a courtesy is not necessary because the debit card,
like a credit card, can be declined at the point of sale if there
are insufficient funds, and the bank can warn the customer that
the customer is overdrawn. According to the lawsuit, BankAtlantic
not only failed to decline charges or warn about overdrafts, it
also failed to give its customers the option of opting out of
such an automatic overdraft protection program. By doing so, the
Bank maximized its fees of $35 per overdraft plus an additional
$7 sustained overdraft fee for every business day after the
customer's account remained negative for five calendar days. The
lawsuit also alleges that BankAtlantic used sophisticated
software to automate its overdrafts and manipulate debit card
transactions by re-sequencing the charges' posting dates and by
posting the highest charges first, further maximizing its fees
and profits.

"BankAtlantic collected $38 million in fees in the first half of
2009," said David Lichter, attorney for the plaintiffs. "It
appears that most of it was for overdraft fees. That means that
at $35 per overdraft, the Bank imposed over one million separate
overdraft fees in six months to thousands of Florida customers."
The plaintiffs are seeking damages to recover all ill-gotten
overdraft fees plus interest, for breach of contract; breach of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing; unconscionability;
unjust enrichment; conversion; and usury.

"We are moving forward with the class action and will prove that
BankAtlantic's systematic and excessive overdraft fees are a
blatant violation of Florida's laws," Lichter said. "It used to
be that banks would decline a transaction if there were
insufficient funds to protect their clients. Now it seems that
they encourage overdrafts because they can maximize their profits
at the expense of the consumer and benefit their bottom line.
That's just wrong."

A copy of the Complaint in Rotiiman, et ux. v. BankAtlantic, a
Federal Savings Bank, Case No. 09059341 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th J.
Cir., Broward Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.overdraftclassaction.com/files/x1a9952rdw.pdf

Additional consumer information is available at:

     http://www.OverdraftClassAction.com/

Mr. Lichter is a partner at the law firm of Higer Lichter &
Givner.  His practice areas are devoted to the litigation,
arbitration, and mediation of business disputes. He is engaged
regularly by both plaintiffs and defendants, litigates cases
throughout Florida, and mediates cases throughout the United
States and Puerto Rico. He is A/V rated by Martindale-Hubbellr,
the highest available rating, and is included in the 2010 edition
of The Best Lawyers in America, the 2009 Florida Trend Magazine's
Legal Elite, and the 2009 edition of Florida Super Lawyers. He is
also a member of the Commercial Panel of Arbitrators and is a
mediator for the American Arbitration Association (AAA). For more
information, visit http://www.HLGlawyers.com/


BRITISH COLUMBIA: Civil Servants Appeal Class Action Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------
Retired British Columbia government employees will try again,
CFAX 1070 reports, to sue the province over the clawback of some
of their benefits.

Lawyer Albert Peeling says he will file an appeal of the
decision, denying the group "class action" status for the
purposes of prosecuting their claim.

It was January 1, 2003, that the government stopped providing
premium-free "M-S-P" and extended health care benefits to retired
government employees.  Earlier this month a B-C supreme court
justice ruled the province is under "no fiduciary duty" to
provide those benefits, and there is no legal redress for people
affected by the change in policy.

One estimate has placed the amount of money at stake at more than
C$200 million.


DIRECTBUY INC: Milberg Files Consumer Fraud Suit in S.D. Ind.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consumer fraud action was filed against DirectBuy, Inc.,
DirectBuy Holdings, Inc., and United Consumers Club, Inc. on
October 29, 2009, alleging consumer fraud, fraud, and unjust
enrichment during the period October 29, 2003 through the
present.  The case is Vance v. DirectBuy, Inc., et al., Case No.
09-cv-1360 (S.D. Ind.) (Lawrence, J.).

As alleged in the complaint filed by Milberg LLP, DirectBuy is a
purchasing club which charges consumers thousands of dollars in
membership fees. In return, DirectBuy tells consumers that they
will not have to pay a mark-up on merchandise, and will instead
be charged the same wholesale price DirectBuy pays for goods.
DirectBuy justifies its high membership rates by representing to
consumers that DirectBuy only makes money from the membership
fees. According to the complaint, however, contrary to these
representations, DirectBuy receives millions of dollars in
discounts, rebates, and other perquisites from suppliers, which
it does not pass on to its members.

The complaint has been filed as a class action on behalf of all
persons in the United States who joined DirectBuy on or after
October 29, 2003. However, no class has yet been certified, and
there can be no guarantee that a class will be certified.


If you have any questions about this action, you may contact:

          Andrei Rado, Esq.
          Stephanie Hatzakos, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl.
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Telephone: (800) 320-5081

Local counsel to the Plaintiff is:

          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.  
          Eric S. Pavlack, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481


DIRECTV INC: Calif. App. Ct. Rejects Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that the California Court of
Appeal decided that a lawsuit charging DIRECTV with using false
advertising to induce subscribers to purchase more expensive
"high definition" services cannot proceed as a class action.
Ruling that members of the proposed nationwide class did not
share a commonality of interests because their rights could vary
from state to state and because many subscribers did not rely on
the alleged falsehoods, Div. Eight upheld the trial court's
denial of class certification.

Philip K. Cohen sued DIRECTV in 2004 under California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, alleging that the
company switched its HDTV channels to a lower resolution,
reducing the quality of television images transmitted to
subscribers.

A subscriber since 1997, Cohen in 2003 upgraded to DIRECTV's "HD
Package," which the company advertised as delivering higher
quality images than its basic service. However, the package
required payment of an additional monthly fee and the purchase of
equipment costing, in some instances, more than $1,000.

Mr. Cohen claimed that DIRECTV "represented that channels in its
HD Package are broadcasted in the.1920x1080i standard and at 19.4
Mbps, which they are not," and that the company advertised the
package without intending to provide broadcasts at those levels.
The company initially moved to compel arbitration, but the trial
court concluded that an arbitration clause in DIRECTV's customer
agreement was unconscionable and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Mr. Cohen then in 2007 sought certification of a class defined as
"Residents of the United States of America who subscribed to
DIRECTV's High Definition Programming Package," but Los Angeles
Superior Court Judge Peter D. Lichtman denied the motion.
Lichtman ruled that the proposed class was not ascertainable
because Mr. Cohen included subscribers who had not relied on
allegedly false advertising, and that the class lacked
commonality for the same reason. He further determined that a
nationwide class action "would be difficult at best," noting that
less than 20 percent of DIRECTV's HD subscribers resided in
California.

Characterizing the decision as a "death knell" to his case, Mr.
Cohen appealed.

Justice Tricia A. Bigelow agreed with the plaintiff that an
ascertainable class existed, but rejected Mr. Cohen's contention
that common issues of law would predominate over applicable law
governing individual class members.  She noted that he did not
meaningfully challenge the trial court's conclusion that
subscribers' legal rights might vary from state to state and that
non-California subscribers might not be protected by the CLRA and
UCL.

She also opined that common issues of fact would not predominate
as a matter of law over individualized issues, explaining:
"[T]he class would include subscribers who never saw DIRECTV
advertisements or representations of any kind before deciding to
purchase the company's HD services, and subscribers who only saw
and/or relied upon advertisements that contained no mention of
technical terms regarding bandwidth or pixels, and subscribers
who purchased DIRECTV HD primarily based on word of mouth or
because they saw DIRECTV's HD in a store or at a friend's or
family member's home.

"In short, common issues of fact do not predominate over [Mr.]
Cohen's proposed class because the members of the class stand in
a myriad of different positions insofar as the essential
allegation in the complaint is concerned, namely, that DIRECTV
violated the CLRA and the UCL by inducing subscribers to purchase
HD services with false advertising."

Acting Presiding Justice Laurence D. Rubin and Justice Madeleine
Flier joined Bigelow in her opinion.

The case is Cohen v. DIRECTV, Inc., B204986.


DIRECTV INC: Judge Pannell Denies DireTV's Arbitration Pitch
------------------------------------------------------------
In an order dated October 28, 2009, the Honorable Charles A.
Pannell, Jr., denied a motion by DirecTV to compel arbitration in
Jones v. DirecTV, Inc., Case No. 09-CV-001036 (N.D. Ga.).  This
class action lawsuit claims that DirecTV and The DirecTV Group,
which are headquartered in El Segundo, California, have
improperly assessed monthly "Leased Receiver" fees upon customers
who obtained their receiver from an authorized DirecTV dealer.
Judge Pannell also denied DirecTV's motion to stay the case,
thereby allowing the plaintiffs to proceed with discovery.

The lawsuit has been pursued on behalf of named plaintiff Andrea
Jones, one of DirecTV's over 18 million subscribers.  According
to the terms of DirecTV's contract with customers such as Ms.
Jones, a lease fee in the amount of $4.99 per month is assessed
for each DirecTV receiver being used by the customer. According
to the contract, however, customers are supposed to receive a
$4.99 monthly credit to their account for the first (primary)
receiver. Ms. Jones' lawsuit alleges that DirecTV has failed to
provide the monthly credit according to the terms of the
contract.

In addition, the Complaint alleges that DirecTV also improperly
charged its customers sales tax on these improper "Leased
Receiver" fees. The suit claims that DirecTV also collects
excessive amounts of sales tax on the leasing fees by charging
customers for taxes on the credited amount and collecting a
greater percentage rate of tax than allowed under state law. The
plaintiffs allege that DirecTV is liable for all damages that
have resulted from its conduct. Moreover, the Complaint seeks
injunctive relief to prevent DirecTV from continuing to assess
these improper charges.

DirecTV responded to the lawsuit by moving the Court to compel
arbitration in accordance with DirecTV's customer agreement. Had
this motion been granted, the case would have been removed from
the judicial system and litigated in a forum more favorable to
DirecTV. Enforcement of the arbitration provision of the customer
agreement also would have prevented the pursuit of the case as a
class action on behalf of all of the customers harmed. Judge
Pannell found that the class action waiver contained within the
customer agreement rendered the arbitration clause substantively
unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.

In this litigation, Ms. Jones is represented by:

          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
          Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
          THE WEBB LAW GROUP, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: 770-444-9325      

               - and -  

          William Woodhull Stone, Esq.
          HOLZER, HOLZER & FISTEL, LLC
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: 770-392-0090

and DirecTV is represented by:

          Andrew E. Paris, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
          333 S. Hope Street, 16th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-576-1000

               - and -  

          Matthew D. Justus, Esq.
          Matthew Dexter Richardson, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
          One Atlantic Center
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: 404-881-4630      


EASTERN HEALTH: Settles Breast Cancer Test Claims for $17.5 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Canwest News Service, via The Vancouver Sun, reports that Eastern
Health Corp. has reached a multi-million dollar settlement in a
class-action lawsuit over flawed breast cancer testing carried
out at its St. John's lab.

Eastern Health and members of the class action jointly announced
on Friday afternoon they had concluded negotiations toward
settlement of the class action arising out of errors in hormone-
receptor testing between 1997 and 2005.

The monetary value of the settlement is approximately $17.5
million.

"No amount of money can adequately compensate people who have
experienced this kind of error in their medical treatment," said
Vickie Kaminski, president and CEO of Eastern Health.

"This settlement is meant to demonstrate Eastern Health's sincere
apology to the class members and their families and to provide
some recognition of their ongoing struggles."

"Class members wanted a financial settlement that demonstrated
sincerity and respect," stated Rosalind Jardine, a member of the
class action.  "This settlement does that."

The settlement was mediated by George Adams, a former Ontario
Superior Court judge.

Non-monetary elements of the deal include membership on an
oversight committee, a suitable memorial, and a consultant to
report in 2012 on progress in implementing the recommendations of
a judicial inquiry into the flawed testing, which submitted its
findings this year.

Previous reports about this matter appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on May 28, 2009, and May 28, 2007.  


FIRST CITY: Retirees Encouraged to Claim Class Action Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
As many as 2,400 former employees of the former First City
Bancorporation may be eligible for cash payments as part of an
estimated $6 million class-action lawsuit settlement that is
being considered for final approval later this month in a Harris
County state district court.  The final approval hearing is
scheduled for Thursday, November 12, before Judge Robert Schaffer
of the 152nd Judicial District Court in Houston.

Eligible members of the class may receive payments in a range of
roughly $1,200 to $1,800.

The dispute involves a defined-benefit retirement plan
established and funded solely by First City for employees in
1976. First City cancelled the plan for being overfunded 10 years
later. The company then made lump-sum payments to some
participants and purchased long-term annuities on behalf of other
employees from the Prudential Insurance Company. After First City
was declared insolvent in 1992 and went through an involuntary
bankruptcy, JPMorgan Chase acquired the trust account.

Under the settlement, a large part of the proceeds attributable
to the annuities will be distributed to class members after
deductions for trustee expenses, attorneys' fees, and other
administrative costs.

"There are as many as 1,200 eligible members of the class for
whom we may not yet have accurate contact information," says
David Furlow of Thompson & Knight LLP.

Thompson & Knight LLP and MacIntyre & McCulloch LLP are class
counsel. Attorneys for the class emphasize that the payments will
not affect anyone's right to receive pension benefits.

Class Administrator Tim Blair has been advertising in newspapers
and posting information on the Class Administrator's Web site in
order to contact as many First City employees as possible.

"I'd like to encourage former First City employees to contact
their fellow employees," Mr. Blair says.

Class members who have questions should review the information on
the Class Administrator's Web site at:

          http://www.firstcityclassaction.com/


FORD MOTOR CREDIT: Md. App. Ct. Upholds Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland declined to disturb a
Howard County trial court judge's decision to certify a class of
borrowers complaining about Ford Motor Credit Company's lending
practices.  A copy of the decision in Ford Motor Credit Company
v. Ferrell, No. 1336, is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inmdco20091102194


IONIA, MICHIGAN: Flood Victims Turn Eyes to City for Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WWMT Newschannel 3 reports that more than 100 people who had
their cars destroyed by heavy flooding at the B-93 Birthday Bash
say they're not going away without a fight.

A judge recently turned down those people's class action lawsuit
against Clear Channel, but they say the fight is far from over,
and the finger pointing continues.  

Coverage of the Judge's decision rejecting a class action
proceeding appeared in the Nov. 4, 2009, edition of the Class
Action Reporter.  The Class Action Reporter covered facts
underlying this matter on Sept. 24, 2009.

A number of flood victims and their attorneys tell Newschannel 3
that they will continue to build their case against B-93, but now
B-93 is saying that if anyone should be sued, it's the City of
Ionia.

Ms. Winsor and her car were both trapped with the basses at the
B-93 Birthday Bash.

"The entrance to the flooded area was completely covered in
water," said Ms. Winsor.

Ms. Winsor's mother, Siggi, feared the worst.

"We knew that the dam had been opened," said Siggi, "I heard that
on the news, I asked her to leave immediately."

But it was too late.  Ultimately, Ms. Winsor's car sat in flood
waters for two weeks.

"This is about irresponsibility on the part of the organizers and
the City of Ionia," said Siggi.

The Winsors and more than 100 other angry B-93 Birthday Bash
attendees enlisted the help of attorney John Tallman.

"These cases are always about justice," said Mr. Tallman.

Mr. Tallman wants all of his clients to be included in one class
action lawsuit against B-93.  However, an Ionia County judge
recently denied them class action status, that means people like
the Winsors who want to make a case, will have to do so
individually.

The Winsors say the won't be giving up, but neither will B-93.  
An attorney for the station told Newschannel 3 that the City of
Ionia is to blame, he says the public safety director knew about
the river conditions and allowed the event to go on anyway.

The Ionia City Manager responded to the allegations, saying "it
was their event, they were leasing the ground, it was their
decision to make whether or not the event would go on."


JEFFERSON AT EDGEWATER: Framingham, Mass., Tenants Sue Again
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Rocheleau, writing for The Boston Globe, reports that
landlords of a Framingham apartment building destroyed by fire
last year face a second lawsuit from former tenants who allege
negligence against the landlords for the fire and that tenants
have been unlawfully prevented from reclaiming their possessions.

The class-action suit claims apartment owners extorted tenants
when owners told residents they could get their possessions back
only if they sign a waiver saying the landlords are not liable
for damage caused by the fire.

"I've never seen something quite as egregious as this," said the
lawsuit's attorney:

          Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
          Hutchings, Barsamian, Mandelcorn & Zeytoonian, LLP
          110 Cedar Street
          Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
          Telephone: (781) 431-2231
          
who has been a class-action lawyer for around 13 years.

All five of the businesses listed as defendants on the lawsuit
were contacted by the Globe and either declined to comment or
have not yet returned messages requesting comment.

In April 2008, a fire broke out at the six-story, 72-apartment
Edgewater 1 building of Jefferson Village complex on Temple
Street causing around $3 million in smoke and fire damage, which
made the building uninhabitable and displaced its 110 or so
residents.

Employees of a plumbing company hired by the landlord ignited the
fire while using an acetylene torch to do work on a second-floor
bathroom. Those employees attempted unsuccessfully to extinguish
the fire for some time before calling 911, according to an
investigation by state and town fire officials.

The fire officials' investigation concluded that the delay in
calling 911, coupled with the lack of an alarm system tied to the
local fire department, "resulted in more advanced fire conditions
upon arrival of the [Framingham] Fire Department than would have
otherwise occurred with proper notification."

In the latest lawsuit filed August 31 in Middlesex Superior
Court, former tenant and plaintiff Thomas Large on behalf of the
other former tenants, allege negligence against the plumbing and
heating company R&R Battista Services, Inc., of Watertown; the
building's owners Jefferson at Edgewater Village, L.P.; and the
building's management and maintenance JPI Management Services,
L.P.

Jefferson Village and real estate investing company, Greystar,
which bought JPI in January, were contacted but neither business
has returned messages requesting comment. The plumbing company
declined to comment.

Mr. Large, now living in Natick, also claims conversion against
Jefferson Village and JPI for not returning personal belongings
to the tenants.

According to the lawsuit, about one month after the fire, tenants
"received a document from Jefferson Village and/or JPI stating
that if they wanted any of their property returned, they would
have to sign a liability waiver and pay $500 to Vertex
Environmental Services for asbestos decontamination of affected
items."

The suit further says Jefferson Village, JPI, their insurance
company York Claims Service, Inc. of New Jersey and Peerless
Insurance Company of New Hampshire, which provides liability for
the plumbing company, were not upfront with tenants as to the
fire's cause and the status of their belongings.

The lawsuit claims the companies of, "making false and misleading
representations as to the cause of the fire and resulting damage,
loss or destruction of their personal property, and its own
responsibility therefore, and as to when they would have access
to their apartments and possessions, and by depriving them of the
right to possession of their personal property unless they agreed
to waive their rights to seek legal recourse against it."

York Claims Service and Peerless Insurance Company both declined
to comment.

Hess-Mahan said, some tenants have still not received their
belongings, which are being held in storage by apartment
management, a year and a half after the fire.

"Basically, all these management companies held theses tenants
hostages," he said, adding that the lawsuit hope to get millions
in damages. "We feel like we have a pretty strong case against
them."

In May 2008, another class-action suit claiming negligence was
filed against apartment owners, management and the Watertown
plumbing company in Middlesex Superior court by former tenants
Anilkumar Abbaiahred and Rashmi Gopalreddy of Westborough, as
well as Framingham residents Saeed Karampour, Ashish Parmar,
Chaoying Zhu, and Visakan Kalimuthu.

Mr. Hess-Mahan said the previous class-action suit, which has not
been resolved, and the one most-recently filed may be combined
into one lawsuit because of their similar claims.

Three residents and eight firefighters were hospitalized after
the midday blaze due to smoke inhalation or stress-related
problems.

The building constructed in 1966 was grandfathered into modern
fire code and had no sprinklers installed.


KB HOME: Fla. Suit Alleges Conspiracy with Countrywide & LandSafe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Central Florida homeowner forced into foreclosure filed a
class-action lawsuit last week against KB Home (NYSE: KBH),
Countrywide Financial and LandSafe Appraisal Services, claiming
the three conspired to rig housing prices in Florida, South
Carolina and North Carolina, costing home purchasers millions of
dollars, and fueling the collapse of the region's housing market.

The Complaint initiating Sullivan v. KB Home, et al., Case No.
09-cv-01847 (M.D. Fla.) (Presnell, J.), claims the three
companies employed a well-planned scheme to control the typically
independent appraisal process, jacking up home values, which, in
turn, were used to determine the value of other homes sold by KB,
affecting thousands of homeowners.

This is the third lawsuit Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro's filed
against KB Home, Countrywide and LandSafe alleging a widespread
and complicated inflation scheme. The other lawsuits represent
homeowners in California, Arizona and Nevada.

"Since we filed the first lawsuit in May, we've heard from
homeowners and industry insiders who have validated our
conclusions that Countrywide and LandSafe were gaming the system,
causing thousands of homeowners to overpay for their home
purchases by tens of thousands of dollars," said Steve Berman,
managing partner of HBSS.

Berman noted that since the first suit was filed, he has heard
from hundreds of homeowners, many desperate to dig out of the
financial hole the suit contends KB and Countrywide put them in
through the alleged scheme.

"No one wants to learn they overpaid for a home, and certainly
not because the builder and the appraiser rigged the game,"
Berman noted.

According to the 94-page complaint, Countrywide funneled all its
KB customers' home appraisals to a single person at LandSafe, an
appraisal subsidiary of Countrywide, who in turn would deliver an
appraisal value at whatever KB and Countrywide ordered.

The named plaintiff, Stephanie Sullivan, purchased her home in
2006 for $426,000. An appraisal conducted a year later reported
her home was worth $310,000 and cited that the market was not the
reason for the lower value but rather an inaccurate and
fraudulent appraisal.

In 2007, Sullivan's husband was laid off and they were unable to
pay the mortgage. The Sullivans tried to work with Countrywide to
modify the loan but the lending giant refused, filing a lien on
the home and eventually foreclosed, pushing the Sullivans into
bankruptcy.

The suit claims all KB Homes in the Southeast segment were
targeted by the scheme. The complaint states between 2006 and
2008 more than 19,000 homes were delivered to the area. At an
average price of $225,000 a home, and conservatively assuming an
average inflated appraisal of $30,000 per home, that amounts to
almost $600 million in inflated contract prices, the suit states.

"The appraisal is a critical step in the home-purchasing process,
designed to be an independent evaluation of the property's
value," Berman added. "We allege that KB and LandSafe dealt from
the bottom of the deck, robbing homeowners of millions of
dollars."

In July 2005, KB settled an investigation with U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for $3.2 million. The payment
settled 13 underwriting violations found by HUD and resulted in
the largest administrative penalty payment in the agency's
history.

One week prior to the announcement of the HUD settlement, KB
announced it was selling its mortgage arm to Countrywide and
together the companies formed Countrywide-KB, a joint venture
that exclusively provides loans to KB home purchasers, the suit
states.

The lawsuit lists several claims against the defendants including
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO), violation of California unfair competition law,
violation of Florida deceptive and unfair trade practices act,
unjust enrichment and violations of Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA).

The lawsuit represents anyone who used Countrywide and LandSafe
to finance a home purchased through KB Home in Florida, South
Carolina or North Carolina.  To join this case, homeowners can
contact attorneys by visiting http://www.hbsslaw.com/kbhomesor  
e-mailing kbhomes@hbsslaw.com or calling (206) 623-7292.

                   About Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro -- http://www.hbsslaw.com/-- is a  
nationally recognized class-action and complex-litigation law
firm based in Seattle with offices in San Francisco, Chicago,
Boston, Los Angeles and Phoenix. Among recent successes, HBSS
negotiated a $300 million settlement in the DRAM memory antitrust
litigation, the largest antitrust settlement in U.S. history,
recovered $340 million on behalf of Enron employees, and was part
of the leadership team in the $3 billion Visa/MasterCard
settlement. In pharmaceutical litigation, the firm's recent
successes include a $350 million settlement with McKesson, more
than $200 million with other parties in drug-pricing litigation,
and a $150 million settlement regarding Lupron. HBSS represented
Washington and 12 other states against the tobacco industry that
resulted in the largest settlement in history.

Local counsel to the Plaintiff in this case is:

          R. Bryant Mcculley, Esq.
          MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
          One Independent Dr., Suite 3201
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: 904-482-4073


KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Dec. 9 Deadline for Chinese Drywall Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
AboutLawsuits.com reports that a court order has been issued that
gives homeowners with defective Chinese drywall manufactured by
Knauf Plasterboard one month to file for inclusion in a class
action lawsuit against the foreign supplier, bypassing legal
hurdles associated with service on the Chinese company.

Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin is a Chinese subsidiary of a German
company which allegedly imported much of the contaminated drywall
into the United States between 2004 and 2006. The company has
agreed to temporarily waive its rights to have lawsuits served
through the Hague Convention, giving plaintiffs a one-month
window to join an omnibus class action lawsuit against the
company.

Defective Chinese drywall has been blamed for causing foul odors,
corrosion of electrical equipment and a host of health problems.
The drywall was imported into the United States earlier this
decade due to a domestic shortage caused by a housing boom and
construction following a series of hurricanes that struck the
southeastern United States. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission has received at least 1,900 complaints about problems
with Chinese drywall from homeowners in 30 states.

In a court order issued on Monday, U.S. District Court Judge
Eldon E. Fallon set a deadline of December 9, 2009 for the filing
of an Omnibus Chinese Drywall Class Action Complaint. To be
eligible for inclusion in the complaint, plaintiffs must provide
proof that their homes contain Knauf drywall by December 2. Proof
of the defective drywall can be established through use of
photographs, samples, visual inspections or reports identifying
Knauf markings on drywall in their home.

Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin), a subsidiary of the Knauf Group, is
only waiving its right to effectuate service through the Hague
Convention for participants in the omnibus class action lawsuit,
which they indicate will not be amended to add other litigants in
the future.

Foreign companies have the right to be served legal services
through the Hague Conventions, which includes translation into
the company's native language and serving papers to the company
in its home country. The process is slow and expensive, costing
about $15,000, and has hindered many plaintiffs from listing KPT
as a defendant in Chinese drywall lawsuits.

Last week, CPSC investigators released preliminary testing
results on Chinese drywall, finding that it released high amounts
of sulfur gases and strontium, a highly chemically reactive
element used in fireworks and often found in nuclear fallout.

Chinese drywall litigation has already been filed by a number of
homeowners throughout the United States against drywall
manufacturers and distributors.  In June, all of the federal
drywall litigation was consolidated and centralized in an MDL, or
Multidistrict Litigation. The cases were assigned to Judge
Fallon, who has put the cases on a "fast track," with trials
involving property damage claims set to begin in early 2010.



LJ INTERNATIONAL: Got Final Okay of $2 Mil. Settlement on Oct. 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LJ International Inc. (NASDAQ:JADE), a leading jewelry
manufacturer and retailer, received, as expected, final approval
of a settlement reached earlier this year with the lead plaintiff
in a class-action lawsuit filed against the Company in 2007.

The order of final approval of the class action settlement was
issued on October 19, 2009, by the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.  The order approves a preliminary
settlement between LJI and the lead plaintiff, under which LJI
will create a settlement fund of $2 million in cash, to be funded
entirely by its insurer. As part of the settlement agreement, all
claims alleged in the lawsuit are dismissed with prejudice and
LJI is released from liability for all such claims.

To be added to LJI's investor lists, please contact Haris Tajyar
at htajyar@irintl.com or at 818-382-9702.

                          About LJ International

LJ International Inc. (NASDAQ:JADE) is engaged in the designing,
branding, marketing and distribution of a full range of jewelry.
It has built its global business on a vertical integration
strategy and an unwavering commitment to quality and service.  
Through its ENZO stores, LJI is now a major presence in China's
fast-growing retail jewelry market.  As a wholesaler, it
distributes to fine jewelers, department stores, national jewelry
chains and electronic and specialty retailers throughout North
America and Western Europe.  Its product lines incorporate all
major categories, including earrings, necklaces, pendants, rings
and bracelets.


MASSEY ENERGY: Settles Age Discrimination Suit for $8.75 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia Media, via Channel 13 WOWK, reports that Massey
Energy settled a class action age discrimination suit for $8.75
million, a figure some are calling the largest of its kind in
West Virginia history.

Fayette County Circuit Court Judge Paul Blake said the settlement
is a, "fair, adequate and reasonable resolution of plaintiff's
individual and class claims against defendants."

The case was filed in 2006 against Massey subsidiary Spartan
Mining Co. and Massey CEO Don Blankenship.  Five coal miners
filed the case on behalf of a class of more than 200 job
applicants.

The suit, which arose out of Massey's purchase of the former
Cannelton mining operation near Montgomery in 2004, alleged that
Massey failed to hire older workers in violation of the West
Virginia Human Rights Act when it began mining operations in
December 2004.

As part of the settlement, 82 miners who previously worked at the
Cannelton operation will each receive $38,000 in back pay and
general compensatory damages.  Another 141 job applicants each
will receive $19,000.

The class was represented by:

          David L. Grubb, Esq.
          Kristina Thomas Whiteaker, Esq.
          THE GRUBB LAW GROUP
          1324 Virginia Street E.
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-3356
          Fax: (304) 345-3355
          
Mr. Grubb, a former state senator from Kanawha County, called the
outcome "excellent" and "a significant victory for West Virginia
workers."

"This is the largest age discrimination settlement in West
Virginia's history," he said.

One of the theories advanced in the discrimination lawsuit was
that Massey's anti-union policies had a disparate impact on older
miners. In settling the lawsuit, however, Massey did not admit
any wrongdoing.

Massey's purchase of the Cannelton property also was the subject
of a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board that
Massey committed a series of unfair labor practices when it
failed to bargain with the United Mine Workers of America, and
refused to hire union members who previously worked at the
Cannelton property.


NASHVILLE SCHOOLS: Class Action Status Sought in Rezoning Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clay Carey at The Tennessean reports that hearings in Spurlock,
et al., v. Fox, et al., Case No. 09-cv-00756 (M.D. Tenn.) (Nixon,
J.), began last week, and the three families who filed the suit
against Metro Nashville's school district over its new rezoning
plan have formally asked a federal judge to open the case to
thousands of Nashville families by giving the case class-action
status.

In the federal lawsuit filed in August, the parents claim the
plan pulls black students out of predominantly white schools and
concentrates them in North Nashville schools.

If the families who filed the suit win, class action status would
allow others to reap the benefits without having to sign on to
the suit itself, said Allen Woods, who along with his father,
Larry Woods, is representing the plaintiffs.

In an amended complaint filed last week, the plaintiffs asked the
court to nullify the current rezoning plan and order the school
system to put the old plan back in place or create a new one
acceptable to both sides by August 2010.  The suit asks the court
to appoint someone to monitor any student assignment plan drafted
by the school system.

Right now, the plaintiffs include three Nashville families and a
community group.

But in all, their lawsuit claims, the new system puts 3,200
students at an unfair disadvantage by forcing them into lower-
performing schools.

The families requested class action status in the Amended
Complaint.  Federal Judge John Nixon will decide whether it is
applicable.

Supporters of the rezoning have said the policy should make it
easier for parents to get involved by putting students in
community schools closer to their homes. School officials have
insisted the plan was not based on race.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Allen Woods, Esq.
          Larry D. Woods, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WOODS & WOODS
          P.O. Box 128498
          Nashville, TN 37212
          Telephone: (615) 321-1426

The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County,
Metropolitan Nashville Board of Public Education, and individual
defendants are represented by:

          Allison L. Bussell, Esq.
          James Lawrence Charles, Esq.
          James W.J. Farrar, Esq.
          Kevin C. Klein, Esq.
          Keli J. Oliver, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Sanders, Esq.
          METROPOLITAN LEGAL DEPARTMENT
          P.O. Box 196300
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 862-6341


ONLINE TRAVEL: Texas Cities Win $20 Mil. Verdict for Unpaid Taxes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The national law firm of McKool Smith obtained a $20 million jury
verdict handed down today on behalf of more than 170 Texas cities
in a class-action lawsuit against online hotel booking companies
over unpaid hotel occupancy taxes.

Texas cities large and small stand to gain from this closely
watched case, while hundreds of municipalities across the country
have either filed their own hotel tax lawsuits or are considering
filing claims aimed at reclaiming lost tourism tax revenue from
Internet-based hotel room wholesalers.

The McKool Smith team representing the City of San Antonio and
other Texas cities and municipalities included lead counsel
Steven Wolens and fellow firm principals Gary Cruciani, and Tom
Graves, along with firm associate Michael Fritz.

The city of San Antonio was the first Texas city to sue the hotel
retailers, which include Expedia Inc., Hotels.com, Priceline.com
Inc., and Travelocity Inc., among others. More than 170
additional Texas cities joined the class-action to recover taxes
that were paid by consumers but never remitted to city
governments. McKool Smith also represents multiple cities and
state and local governments outside Texas in similar claims,
including San Francisco, San Diego, Anaheim, Calif., and Broward
County, Florida, among others.

According to the lawsuit filed in May 2006, online booking
companies underpaid transient occupancy taxes by paying taxes
only on wholesale room rates rather than the actual retail rates
charged to customers who book their hotels online. For example,
online wholesalers purchase rooms at discounted rates, and then
make a profit by re-selling the rooms to consumers at higher
retail rates. Typically, if a company like Expedia.com pays $70
for a hotel room but later resells it for $100 plus taxes, then
the company will only remit taxes for the lesser amount.

The four-week trial before Judge Orlando Garcia of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas concluded
following five hours of deliberations by a jury of seven men and
five women. The jury's $20 million verdict could increase with
statutory penalties and interest.

"This entire industry has systematically withheld taxes for
years, and not just in Texas," says lead trial attorney Mr.
Wolens. "The business practices for which the defendants were
found liable are the same actions that these companies engage in
throughout the U.S."

Cities depend on hotel occupancy taxes to fund improvements to
their tourism infrastructure, among other things. For San
Antonio, tourism is one of the top employers and revenue
generators, contributing an estimated $7.2 billion to the local
economy annually.

McKool Smith -- http://www.mckoolsmith.com/-- is recognized as  
one of the premier trial law firms in the United States based on
significant courtroom victories and substantial settlements for
domestic and international clients. With more than 100 attorneys
in Dallas, Austin, Marshall, New York, and Washington DC, McKool
Smith handles commercial, intellectual property and white collar
litigation for companies and individuals, including major
airlines, telecommunications companies, medical device
manufacturers, oil & gas concerns, and many others. McKool Smith
is recognized in The National Law Journal for winning more of the
Top 100 Verdicts of 2008 than any other law firm in the country.

                            Appeal Planned

Jacob Dirr at the Austin Business Journal and Jeff Bounds at the
Dallas Business Journal report that the travel companies plan to
appeal, according to Andrew Weinstein, a spokesman for the
Washington, D.C.-based Interactive Travel Services Association.  
The group was not a party to the litigation but represents all of
the companies that were sued.

"We're very confident of our prospects" on appeal, Mr. Weinstein
told Messrs. Dirr and Bounds.  


PACIFIC GAS: Accused of Negligence & Fraud in SmartMeter Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hood at ConsumerAffairs.com reports that a California man has
filed suit against Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E),
alleging that the company's "SmartMeter" program consistently
overcharges him for gas and electric services. Pete Flores, of
Bakersfield, says the problem is so out of hand that he now pays
more for utilities than he does for his mortgage.  

SmartMeter is PG&E's automated meter reading program, a
technology employed by many large energy companies. Automated
meter reading allows utility providers to collect consumption
data remotely, from a central location. Automated meters recoup
the time, money, and manpower needed to make physical trips to
manually read each customer's meter. The first automated meter
reading program, Metertek, was launched in 1977.

PG&E rolled out the SmartMeter in early 2007, starting in
Bakersfield, with the eventual goal of implementing a pricing
system that varies depending on the time of day and season.

The suit has been brewing for some time. PG&E has received so
many complaints of overcharges that the utilities behemoth
established an "answer center" in its Bakersfield office, where
consumers can go to discuss questions or concerns regarding their
SmartMeters. Last month, over 200 PG&E customers descended on a
public hearing to protest that their meters were malfunctioning
and causing their astronomical energy charges.

The Class is represented by:

          Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
          Kirtland & Packard, LLP
          101 California Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-946-8946

He said the firm received several complaints from area residents
with abnormally large utility bills.

In addition to PG&E, the suit names as a defendant Wellington
Energy, which installed the SmartMeters. Wellington, a subsidiary
of Pittsburgh-based Wellington Power, is so proud of the
SmartMeter that it boasts about the device on its homepage, which
describes the automated meter reading program as "the largest of
its kind in North America." Wellington says that the meter allows
PG&E to measure consumers' energy use frequently - one a day for
gas and once an hour for electric. The site says that SmartMeters
"enhanc[e] environmental sustainability while maintaining high
levels of electric reliability."

The suit charges PG&E with fraud, false advertising, unfair
competition, and negligence. Flores says that PG&E has been less
than honest about the meters' accuracy, has been unresponsive to
complaints, and has covered up SmartMeter-related rate increases.
Kelly accuses PG&E of whistling past the graveyard, saying the
company has "taken the position that there is absolutely no
problem here at all."

Indeed, PG&E spokesman Denny Boyles said in a statement that "the
allegations in the lawsuit are untrue and have no merit." The
company plans to hire hire an "independent party" to review the
meters' accuracy, which it believes will confirm that the meters
are working properly.

State Senator Dean Florez, who convened the hearing of frustrated
consumers, asked PG&E and the California Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) about the SmartMeter complaints, but was
basically blown off. He told a local news affiliate that news of
the suit doesn't come as a shock.  "PG&E's case to the PUC for
smart meters was so shot with bias against consumers that it
doesn't surprise me that PG&E is being taken to court," Sen.
Florez said.


PULTE HOMES: Hagens Berman Continues Home Sale Practices Probe
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro says it is investigating Pulte Homes
(NYSE: PHM) in Arizona and Nevada based on reports that claim the
company may be engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially
inflate home sale prices and drive sales by controlling the home
sale process.

The firm filed a lawsuit against Pulte Homes in California on
Oct. 23, 2009, citing similar claims and believes the practice
is widespread throughout Pulte neighborhoods in Arizona and
Nevada.  That case is Kaing v. Pulte Homes, Inc., et al., Case
No. 09-cv-05057 (N.D. Calif.).   

The lawsuit in California claims Pulte placed unqualified
homeowners in loans that they could not afford in an effort to
sell more homes and at higher prices. Since Pulte controls the
entire home buying process, its settlement and appraisal arms can
take whatever steps necessary to close a sale at prices demanded
by Pulte.

"We believe Pulte Homes spent a lot of time and effort to develop
a sophisticated scheme in California, and decided they didn't
want to stop there," said Rob Carey, a partner in the HBSS
Phoenix office. "We believe that Pulte targeted homeowners in
states with high foreclosure rates, including Arizona and Nevada,
and we're interested in learning more about the company's sales
process in these states on behalf of homeowners."

HBSS is interested in hearing from anyone who purchased a home
from Pulte in the past several years in Arizona or Nevada.
Homeowners can contact the firm at pulte@hbsslaw.com, visit the
Web site at http://www.hbsslaw.com/pulteor call (206) 623-7292.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro will treat all information as
confidential.

                    About Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro is a nationally recognized class-
action and complex-litigation law firm based in Seattle with
offices in San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and
Phoenix. Among recent successes, HBSS negotiated a $300 million
settlement in the DRAM memory antitrust litigation, the largest
antitrust settlement in U.S. history, recovered $340 million on
behalf of Enron employees, and was part of the leadership team in
the $3 billion Visa/MasterCard settlement.  In pharmaceutical
litigation, the firm's recent successes include a $350 million
settlement with McKesson, more than $200 million with other
parties in drug-pricing litigation, and a $150 million settlement
regarding Lupron. HBSS represented Washington and 12 other states
against the tobacco industry that resulted in the largest
settlement in history. For a complete listing of HBSS cases,
visit http://www.hbsslaw.com/


QUEST SOFTWARE: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Suit for $29.4 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Software, Inc. (Nasdaq: QSFT) disclosed last week that it
has reached an agreement in principle with the class
representative to settle the shareholder class action relating to
alleged option backdating that was filed in October 2006 in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against Quest and certain of its current or former officers and
directors for a payment of $29.4 million.  The parties are
negotiating in good faith a stipulation of settlement which will
be subject to court approval once finalized.

Quest Software, Inc., designs, develops, markets, distributes,
and supports enterprise systems management software products.

The Class Action Reporter's latest update about Middlesex
Retirement System v. Quest Software, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-
cv-06863 (C.D. Calif.), appeared in the Jan. 29, 2009, edition.  

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
          Anthony D. Green, Esq.
          Marian P. Rosner, Esq.
          Chet B. Waldman, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER
          845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl.
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 212-451-9619

               - and -

          Blake M. Harper, Esq.
          Seth P. Weber, Esq.
          HULETT HARPER STEWART
          550 West C Street, Suite 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-338-1133

Quest Software, Inc., is represented by:

          Ryan E. Blair, Esq.  
          Koji F. Fukumura, Esq.
          Aaron F. Olsen, Esq.
          Meghan Oryan Spieker, Esq.
          COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: 858-550-6000

Defendant Kevin Brooks is represented by:

          Zulaikha Aziz, Esq.
          Wrenn E. Chais, Esq.
          Cary J. Economou, Esq.
          Michael F. Perlis, Esq.
          STROOCK AND STROOCK AND LAVAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310-556-5987

Defendant David M. Doyle is represented by:

          Shoshana E. Bannett, Esq.
          Brad D. Brian, Esq.
          Luis Li, Esq.
          MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue 35th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-683-9593

Defendant Vincent C. Smith is represented by:

          Ethan J. Brown, Esq.
          Paul H. Dawes, Esq.
          Terri Lea Lilley, Esq.
          David J. Schindler, Esq.
          LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue Ste 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-485-1234

Defendant Brinkley Morse is represented by:

          Vincent J. Brown, Esq.
          Robert D. Rose, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MILLER RICHTER AND HAMPTON
          501 West Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-338-6500

Defendant Jerry Murdock, Jr., is represented by:

          Michael Z. Goldman, Esq.
          Andrew J. Levander, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          1095 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212-649-8744

               - and -  

          Robert A. Robertson, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 1400
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: 949-442-6000

               - and -  

          Valerie M. Wagner, Esq.
          GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP
          1891 Landings Drive
          Mountain View, CA 94043
          Telephone: 650-428-3900





RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Responds to Suit Over Levine's Buy-Out Offer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rubio's(R) Restaurants, Inc. (NASDAQ: RUBO) issued this statement
in response to a class action lawsuit filed against the Company,
its directors and officers, and Alex Meruelo in California
Superior Court:

     "The Company denies the allegations and claims in the
recently filed lawsuit.  The lawsuit inaccurately asserts that
the Company's officers and directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the Company's receipt of an unsolicited
proposal to acquire all of the Company's outstanding common stock
by a group consisting of Alex Meruelo and his affiliates and
Levine Leichtman Capital Partners IV, L.P.  The lawsuit seeks to
enjoin the Company and its directors and officers from
consummating a sale of the Company to the Meruelo Group.  The
Company does not have, and has never had, an agreement or
arrangement to sell any stock or assets to the Meruelo Group.  
[On Oct. 29, 2009], the Company announced that its Board of
Directors had rejected the unsolicited proposal from the Meruelo
Group after unanimously determining that the proposal was not in
the best interests of the Company's stockholders.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend against this meritless lawsuit."

The Class Action Reporter covered the filing of Israni v. Rubio's
Restaurants, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2009-00062992-CU-BT-NC
(Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.), in its Oct. 23, 2009,
edition.

                    About Rubio's(R) Restaurants

Bold, distinctive, Baja-inspired food is the hallmark of Rubio's
Fresh Mexican Grill(R).  The first Rubio's was opened in 1983 in
the Mission Bay community of San Diego by Ralph Rubio and his
father, Ray Rubio.  Rubio's is credited with introducing fish
tacos to Southern California and starting a phenomenon that has
spread coast to coast. In addition to chargrilled marinated
chicken, lean carne asada steak, and slow-roasted pork carnitas,
Rubio's menu features seafood items including grilled mahi mahi
and shrimp. Guacamole and a variety of salsas and proprietary
sauces are made from scratch daily, and Rubio's uses canola oil
with zero grams trans fat per serving.  The menu includes tacos,
burritos, salads and bowls, quesadillas, HealthMex(R) offerings
which are lower in fat and calories, and domestic and imported
beer in most locations. Each restaurant design is reminiscent of
the relaxed, warm and inviting atmosphere of Baja California, a
coastal state of Mexico.  Headquartered in Carlsbad, California,
Rubio's -- http://www.rubios.com/-- operates, licenses or  
franchises more than 195 restaurants in California, Arizona,
Colorado, Utah and Nevada.  


STATE STREET: Judge Holwell Gives Nod to $89.75 ERISA Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports that the Honorable Richard
Holwell ordered State Street Corp. to pay $89.75 million to
settle the lawsuit captioned In re State Street Bank and Trust Co
ERISA Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-8488 (S.D.N.Y.), concerning
mortgage losses.  Judge Holwell rejected State Street's argument
that the settlement pact may prove unfair depending on how a
related regulatory probe is resolved.  Judge Holwell granted
preliminary approval of the class-action settlement with a group
of employee benefit plans late on Wednesday.

The accord resolves allegations that the plans lost more than
$150 million in the third quarter of 2007 because Boston-based
State Street misled them about its investments in risky
securities, including mortgages.

The case is unusual in that State Street had agreed to resolve
the case, only to then seek to put the accord on hold while it
tried to settle a related probe, including threatened civil
charges, by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

State Street did not return several calls from Mr. Stempel
seeking comment.  A lawyer for the plaintiffs did not return a
call for a comment.  SEC spokesman John Heine declined to comment
as well.

In 2007, State Street had set up a $625 million legal reserve to
cover investor claims after mortgage securities that the company
bought lost value when credit markets tightened.

Judge Holwell said State Street signed a "binding term sheet" for
the class-action accord on June 26, the day after the SEC issued
a "Wells notice" over the bank's mortgage investments.

A Wells notice indicates that SEC staff may pursue civil charges,
and gives the recipient a chance to mount a defense.

According to Judge Holwell, State Street said it had been in
settlement talks with the SEC since late July, making it
impossible to determine whether the class-action accord is "fair,
reasonable and adequate."

The judge nevertheless rejected State Street's suggestion that a
potential SEC settlement could be even larger, perhaps involving
a "fair fund" to compensate investors.

"There is no such certainty as to if, when, and under what terms
the SEC fair fund will be established," he wrote.

Judge Holwell said the class-action accord otherwise appeared
"manifestly" fair, given that it covers 58 percent of estimated
losses and follows "intensely adversarial" negotiations.  He set
a Feb. 17 hearing to consider final approval.


STATE STREET: Cohen Milstein Investigating F/X Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein, a pioneer in plaintiff class action lawsuits, is
conducting an investigation to determine whether potentially
illegal foreign exchange trades executed by State Street Bank &
Trust Company on behalf of pension funds may have violated the
Employee Retirement Income Securities Act of 1974, the Federal
Law which governs State Street's conduct as a fiduciary of ERISA
covered pension plan for which State Street provides custodial
and other services.

Cohen Milstein's investigation is based upon a recently unsealed
Qui Tam action filed in California Superior Court by a private
plaintiff (or relator) alleging that State Street engaged in an
extensive multi-year scheme to defraud pension fund clients,
including California's two largest pension plans, CalPERS and
CalSTRS, by charging "false or inflated foreign exchange (F/X)
rates for international security transactions."  A Qui Tam action
is one brought under a statute that allows a private person to
sue for a penalty, part of which the government or some specified
public institution will receive.

A copy of the Complaint in People v. State Street Corporation, et
al., Case No. 34-2008-00008457-CU-MC-GDS (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty.), is available at:

   http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1823_october_20.pdf

According to the allegations in the Qui Tam complaint State
Street carried out its fraudulent scheme by executing foreign
exchange transactions requested early in the day at the rate
available at that time, and then watching market fluctuation over
the course of the day in order to charge the clients a different
rate than the one at which State Street actually settled the
transaction.  If the transaction was a purchase of a foreign
security, State Street would charge a higher foreign exchange
rate available later in the day, thus causing the client to pay
more than what State Street actually paid. If the transaction was
a sale of a foreign security, State Street would charge a lower
foreign exchange rate available later in the day, thus remitting
to the client an amount less than what State Street actually
received. "Either way, [State Street] pocketed the difference
between the actual rates and the 'hypothetical' rates charged to
the clients."

The Attorney General for the State of California has also
recently filed a similar complaint asserting similar claims
against State Street and seeking treble damages and civil
penalties.

If you are pension plan or the fiduciary of a pension plan for
whom State Street has provided foreign exchange services within
the past ten years and believe you may have suffered losses as a
result of State Street's foreign exchange practices, please
contact attorneys Bruce Rinaldi, Marc Machiz or R. Joseph Barton
toll free at (888) 240-0775.

Cohen Milstein is one of the leading plaintiffs ERISA and pension
fund litigation firms in the United States. The Employee Benefits
practice area at Cohen Milstein is led by Marc I. Machiz, who
served as the chief employee benefits lawyer at the United States
Department of Labor prior to joining the firm in 2000. Cohen
Milstein has successfully litigated a wide variety of class
actions on behalf of the pension plans to restore assets to
pension plans and protect the retirement benefits of plan
participants. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
For more information, visit http://www.cohenmilstein.com/


TIMBERCORP LTD: Faces Another Class Action Suit in Australia
------------------------------------------------------------
Business Spectator reports that failed agricultural firm
Timbercorp Ltd will face another class action after former
grower-investors in the business launched a case against the
company, its responsible entity and three of its directors,
according to The Age newspaper.

A claim filed in the Victorian Supreme Court by more than 2000
investors representing $200 million of Timbercorp investments
alleges conflicts of interest, misleading or deceptive conduct,
breaches of directors' duties, including lying to investors about
the stability of the company in order to gain financially, and
other breaches of the Corporations Act, the newspaper reports.

Should the action be successful, the funds will be drawn from
Timbercorp's professional indemnity insurance and the insurance
coverage of its directors and officers.

The insurance company has yet to be identified.

The action will replace a separate case by Timbercorp's
liquidator KordaMentha, that was to be heard in the court.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Doral Bank Files Class Action Suit in Seattle
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Grind at the Puget Sound Business Journal reports that a
Puerto Rico-based bank has filed a lawsuit against two Washington
Mutual subsidiaries, alleging that they didn't properly disclose
information about mortgage-backed securities they issued in 2006
and 2007, shortly before the start of the financial crisis.

The 59-page suit, which was filed in federal court in Seattle, is
intended to be a class action.  It alleges that Washington Mutual
Acceptance Corporation and WaMu Capital Corporation, both
involved in creating the securities, violated the federal
Securities Act and Washington state law by providing misleading
information about the securities in question.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Western Washington
by Doral Bank Puerto Rico, which purchased WaMu securities. It
also names five former WaMu directors involved in the bank's
subsidiaries and an affiliated appraisal company.

Dora Bank is leading the suit, but thousands of security holders
are expected to make up the class, according to the complaint.
It's unclear who is representing the defunct WaMu entities since
the bank's holding company is in bankruptcy and its assets were
sold last year to JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM).

According to the suit, WaMu issued securities backed by its own
single-family residential mortgages "whose interest rates
adjusted (after an initial fixed rate period) and included a
negative amortization feature."

The certificate that came with securities issued by WaMu claimed
that they were made up of a pool of residential mortgages that
were "subject to underwriting guidelines," including "a
borrower's creditworthiness" and "reviews of loan applications,"
the suit alleges.

But shortly after the securities were issued, details began to
emerge about the high rate of default among the mortgages backing
the securities, according to the lawsuit. Dora Bank, and other
members of the class, were not aware of WaMu's foray into risky
loans such as subprime mortgages, stated income loans and Option
ARMs, the suit alleges.

"Following the issuance of the certificates, disclosures began to
emerge revealing the routine disregard for the guidelines in
mortgage loan origination of the collateral underlying the
certificates," the suit alleges.

After WaMu's troubles began to mount in 2007 and early 2008, the
price of the certificates dropped from a face value of $1 to
about 66 cents, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit demands a jury trial and also an undisclosed amount
of compensation for members of the class.


XFONE INC: Plaintiff Withdraws Israeli Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
BenZingA.com reports that on October 26, 2009, there was a
development in the legal proceeding involving Xfone, Inc. (AMEX:
XFN), a 69% owned Israel based subsidiary of Xfone, Inc. and Omer
Fleisig.

                             Background

As previously disclosed, on December 16, 2008, Omer Fleisig filed
a request to approve a claim as a class action against Xfone 018,
and Israel 10 - Shidury Haruts Hahadash Ltd., an entity unrelated
to the Company, in the District Court in Petach Tikva, Israel.
Mr. Fleisig attempted to participate in a television call-in game
show, which was produced by Israel 10, using Xfone 018's
international telecom services.  The claim alleged that although
Mr. Fleisig's two attempts to participate in the show were
unsuccessful because he received a busy signal when trying to
call in, he was billed by Xfone 018 for both attempts.

Mr. Fleisig sought damages for the billed attempts.  He was
billed 10 NIS (approximately $2.70) for the calls.  The Class
Action Request stated total damages of NIS 24,750,000
(approximately $ 6,689,189) which reflects Mr. Fleisig's
estimation of damages caused to all participants in the game show
which (pursuant to the Class Action Request) allegedly received a
busy signal while trying to call in to the game during a certain
period defined in the Class Action Request.

                        Recent Development

On October 28, 2009, Xfone 018 was informed that on October 26,
2009, the Israeli Court approved Mr. Fleisig's request to
withdraw both his personal claim against Xfone 018 and the Class
Action Request.  Mr. Fleisig's personal claim was dismissed with
prejudice, and the Class Action Request was dismissed without
prejudice.  The Israeli Court did not award any fees or expenses
to either party.


ZALE CORP: SEC Investigating & Class-Action Suit in the Works
-------------------------------------------------------------
The International Diamond Exchange at IDEXonline.com reports that
shares of jewelry retailer Zale Corp. plunged nearly 26 percent
after the company revealed that the Securities and Exchange
Commission will investigate its accounting after Zale restated
its 2008 and 2009 earnings.

Zale announced its fourth-quarter and annual results last week
after postponing the release twice.  It reported the SEC
investigation during a conference call.

The company said in the conference call that after conducting a
review of advertising accounting, it found "certain advertising
costs previously recorded as prepaid were expensed in periods
subsequent to the period in which the advertisement actually
ran," according to Reuters.

The bad news did not stop there, IDEX says.  A Bensalem,
Pennsylvania, law firm announced that it is "investigating
potential claims against Zale Corporation, concerning possible
securities violations in relation to public statements made by
the Company between November 16, 2006 and October 29, 2009."

The investigation, according to the Saturday release by the law
offices of Howard G. Smith, focuses on allegations that
statements made by Zale during that period "were false and
misleading."

The law firm asked Zale shareholders to contact them. The law
firm's website invites the public to join a class action
complaint against Zale.


* Chartis Offering Class Action Litigation Insurance to Schools
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chartis has introduced OMNI-GOLD(R), developed by its Cat Excess
Liability Division to enable higher education institutions to
purchase follow form excess casualty coverage and a combination
of excess financial lines coverages in one policy.  OMNI-GOLD is
designed to cover diverse and potentially catastrophic risks such
as a: dormitory fire; foodborne illness in a dining hall; serious
injury from an overzealous stadium crowd; allegation of
harassment in a classroom; or class action suit from faculty
alleging discrimination associated with lack of tenure.

OMNI-GOLD offers a shared aggregate excess limit of liability of
up to EUR/USD50 million in principal areas of exposure,
eliminating the need to purchase individual excess policies. Most
importantly, insureds do not have to change the way they
currently purchase insurance, with the ability to maintain
separate primary policies and continue primary carrier
relationships with familiar coverage language. OMNI-GOLD drops
down in the event of a covered loss.

"Given the unpredictability of liabilities and litigation, the
purchase of catastrophic liability limits by higher education
institutions is vital," said Jeremy Johnson, President of Cat
Excess Liability.  "OMNI-GOLD addresses the liability risks that
these institutions face with broad coverage, local service,
flexibility and choice."

For more information regarding OMNI-GOLD, please contact:

          Joseph Klimek
          Vice President of Cat Excess Liability
          Telephone: (312) 930-4754
          E-mail: joseph.klimek@chartisinsurance.com

Chartis -- http://www.chartisinsurance.com/-- is a world leading  
property-casualty and general insurance organization serving more
than 40 million clients in over 160 countries and jurisdictions.
With a 90-year history, one of the industry's most extensive
ranges of products and services, deep claims expertise and
excellent financial strength, Chartis enables its commercial and
personal insurance clients alike to manage virtually any risk
with confidence.

Chartis is the marketing name for the worldwide property-casualty
and general insurance operations of Chartis Inc.  All products
are written by insurance company subsidiaries or affiliates of
Chartis Inc. Coverage may not be available in all jurisdictions
and is subject to actual policy language.  Non-insurance products
and services may be provided by independent third parties.
Certain coverage may be provided by a surplus lines insurer.
Surplus lines insurers do not generally participate in state
guaranty funds and insureds are therefore not protected by such
funds.


* ABA to Examine Class Actions in D.C. Seminar on Fri., Nov. 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
On Friday, November 20, 2009, join the American Bar Association
to explore the latest developments in class action litigation.
This event will be at the Willard InterContinental Hotel located
at 1401 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in Washington DC.

The seminar will take place from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.
starting with a breakfast; the meetings will begin at 9:00 a.m.

Any attorney who negotiates class actions will benefit from this
program.  Attendees will learn about the latest in class action
litigation.  A section presented by Professor John C. Coffee of
Columbia Law School will feature a look at arbitration, class
action waivers and settlement issues.  A roundtable discussion
will follow in the afternoon looking at current issues in class
actions such as tactics on settlement of class actions, waivers
and arbitration clauses.  The roundtable discussion with three
federal judges will be moderated by Professor Arthur R. Miller of
the New York University School of Law.

For information about available CLE credits and fees, visit CLE
Events on The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Web site at
http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/

To register, visit http://www.abanet.org/and click on events.


                   New Securities Fraud Suits

IMMERSION CORP: Murray Frank Files Shareholder Suit in N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action complaint, in
the Northern District of California, against Immersion
Corporation (Nasdaq: IMMR) and certain of its officers and
directors, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Immersion
securities between May 3, 2007, and July 1, 2009, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose: (1) that
the Company overstated its income tax expense; (2) that the
Company improperly recognized revenue; (3) that, as a result, the
Company's revenue, accounts receivable, and financial results,
were overstated during the Class Period; (4) that the Company's
financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles; (5) that the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls; and (6) that as a
result of the above, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 1, 2009, before the market opened, the Company issued a
press release announcing that the Audit Committee of the
Company's Board was conducting an internal investigation into
certain previous revenue transactions in its Medical line of
business. On this news, Immersion's stock dropped over 23% from a
close of $4.94 per share on June 30, 2009, to a close of $3.80
per share on July 1, 2009.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move
the Court, not later than November 2, 2009, to serve as Lead
Plaintiff for the class. A Lead Plaintiff is a representative
chosen by the Court who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. You do not need to be a Lead Plaintiff
to be included in the class. If you purchased Immersion
securities and wish to discuss this litigation, or have any
questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact:

          Brian D. Brooks, Esq.
          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          Telephone: 212-682-1818

A number of securities fraud cases are pending in the Northern
District of California against Immersion Corporation.  THe
earliest, filed Sept. 2, 2009, is Hodges v. Immersion Corp., et
al., Case No. 09-cv-04073 (N.D. Calif.) (Chesney, J.), and the
latest, filed on Oct. 29, 2009, is Mello v. Immersion Corp., et
al., Case No. 09-cv-05137 (N.D. Calif.) (Armstrong, J.).


PROSHARES: Gilman and Pastor Files Two S.D.N.Y. Shareholder Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gilman and Pastor LLP filed two class action lawsuits on October
23, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares in the UltraShort Oil and Gas Fund (the
"DUG" Fund) (AMEX: DUG) and Ultra Financials ProShares Fund (the
"UYG Fund") (AMEX: UYG) (collectively "the Funds"), exchange-
traded funds ("ETFs") offered by ProShares Trust, pursuant or
traceable to ProShares' false and misleading Registration
Statement, Prospectuses, and Statements of Additional Information
issued in connection with the Funds' shares.  The Class is
seeking recovery for investors under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The complaints name ProShares; ProShare Advisors LLC, SEI
Investments Distribution Co., Michael L. Sapir, Louis M. Mayberg,
Russell S. Reynolds, III, Michael Wachs, and Simon D. Collier, as
Defendants.  ProShares sells its Ultra and UltraShort ETFs as
"simple" directional plays.  As marketed by ProShares, Ultra ETFs
are designed to go up when markets go up; UltraShort ETFs are
designed to go up when markets go down.

The DUG Fund is one of ProShares' UltraShort ETFs. The DUG Fund
seeks investment results that correspond to twice (200%) the
inverse (opposite) of the daily performance of the Dow Jones Oil
and Gas Index ("DJOGI"), which measures the performance of the
energy sector of the U.S. equity markets. For example, the DUG
Fund is supposed to deliver double the inverse return of the
DJOGI, which fell approximately 37 percent from January 2, 2008
through December 17, 2008, ostensibly creating a profit for
investors who anticipated a decline in the performance of the
U.S. equity markets. In other words, the DUG Fund should have
appreciated by 74 percent during this period. However, the DUG
Fund actually fell approximately 30 percent during this period.

The UYG Fund is one of ProShares' Ultra ETFs. The UYG Fund seeks
investment results that correspond to twice (200%) the daily
performance of the Dow Jones U.S. Financials Market Index
("DJUSFI"), which measures the performance of the financials
industry of the U.S. equity markets. For example, the UYG Fund is
supposed to deliver double the daily return of the DJUSFI, which
increased approximately 1.47 percent from January 2, 2009 through
July 31, 2009, ostensibly creating a profit for investors who
anticipated an increase in the performance of the financial
markets. In other words, the UYG Fund should have appreciated by
2.9 percent during this period. However, the UYG Fund actually
fell approximately 25 percent during this period.

The complaints allege the Defendants violated the Securities Act
by failing to disclose that the Funds are altogether defective as
a securities product and as directional investment play.
Defendants failed to disclose the following risks in the
Registration Statement: (1) if the Funds shares were held for a
time period longer than one day, the likelihood of catastrophic
losses were substantial; (2) the extent to which performance of
the Funds would inevitably diverge from the performance of the
Index -- i.e., the probability, if not certainty, of spectacular
tracking error; (3) the severe consequences of high market
volatility on the Funds' investment objective and performance;
and (4) the severe consequences of inherent path dependency in
periods of high market volatility on the Funds' performance.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired shares in the DUG Fund or
UYG Fund and either lost in excess of $200,000. or still hold the
shares, you may wish to join in the action to serve as Lead
Plaintiff. In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements
set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate papers no
later than November 23, 2009. If you have any questions about the
lawsuit, please contact Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq. of Gilman and
Pastor, at (888) 252-0048, or via email at info@gilmanpastor.com.

A Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent
class members. If you are a class member and there is a recovery
for the class, you can share in that recovery as an absent class
member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in
this action. If you are a member of the class, you can view a
copy of the complaints and join this class action online at:

     http://proshares-ultrashort-dug.comand http://proshares-ultra-uyg.com

Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm Gilman and Pastor LLP.
Gilman and Pastor LLP is one of the country's premier national
law firms that represent institutional and individual investors
in class action, complex securities and corporate governance
litigation. The firm has been a champion of investor rights for
over 30 years and has been recognized for its reputation for
excellence by the courts.

FOr more information, contact:

          Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.
          Gilman and Pastor, LLP
          28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 105
          Bonita Springs, FL 34135
          Telephone: (888) 252-0048
          Fax: (508) 291-3258


R.H. DONNELLEY: Coughlin Files D&O Fraud Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of an institutional investor in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of
purchasers of R.H. Donnelley Corporation (OTC:RHDCQ.PK) publicly
traded securities during the period between July 26, 2007, and
May 28, 2009, inclusive.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Coughlin Stoia at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@csgrr.com.  

If you are a member of this class, you can join this class action
online at http://www.csgrr.com/cases/rhdonnelley/  

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

A copy of the Complaint initiating Local 731 I.B. of T.
Excavators and Pavers Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Swanson, et
al., Case No. 09-cv-00799 (D. Del.) (Baylson, J.), is available
at http://www.csgrr.com/cases/rhdonnelley/complaint.pdf

The complaint charges certain of RH Donnelley's officers and/or
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
RH Donnelley operates as a Yellow Pages and online local
commercial search company.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results. Defendants caused the
Company to fail to properly account for its bad debt expense and
timely write down its impaired goodwill. As a result of
defendants' false and misleading statements, RH Donnelley's stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
trading as high as $66.67 in July 2007. However, beginning in
February 2008, defendants began to acknowledge problems in the
Company's operations and with its financial results. On March 12,
2009, RH Donnelley announced that it had retained a financial
advisor to assist in the evaluation of its capital structure,
including various balance sheet restructuring alternatives. Then,
on May 29, 2009, RH Donnelley filed for bankruptcy. The stock now
trades at around six cents per share.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company was not adequately
reserving for its bad debts in violation of GAAP, causing its
financial results to be materially misstated; (b) the downward
pressure the Company was experiencing with its advertising
revenue was not exclusively due to cyclical challenges, as
represented, but was also due to a permanent shift in customers
moving away from print yellow pages advertising; (c) the Company
had far greater exposure to liquidity concerns and ratings
downgrades than it had previously disclosed; and (d) given the
turmoil in the economy and the trends related to a shift away
from print advertising, the Company had no reasonable basis to
make projections about its 2008 results.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
RH Donnelley publicly traded securities during the Class Period.
The plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has
expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.

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


THE9 LTD: Coughlin Stoia Files Shareholder Complaint in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Herman at DigitalEastAsia.com reports that on October 21,
2009, Lawrence Glaser, a U.S. shareholder in The9 Limited
(NASDAQ: NCTY) filed an class action lawsuit against the Chinese
game operator and members of its senior management.  Mr. Glaser
is looking for all shareholders who purchased American Depositary
Shares (ADS's) of The9 -- between November 2006 and July 2009 --
to be compensated for their financial losses due to the company's
inability to extend its license to host in China Activision
Blizzard Inc.'s (NASDAQ: ATVI) World of Warcraft (WoW).

A copy of the Complaint in Glaser v. The9, Ltd., et al., Case No.
09-cv-08904 (S.D.N.Y.) (Holwell, J.), is available at:

     http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/10/29/the9wowlawsuit.pdf

The suit alleges that The9 misrepresented the likelihood that the
license to operate WoW would be successfully renewed.  The suit
seeks to establish answers to the following questions of law and
fact:

(a) Whether the federal securities laws were violated by the
     Defendants' acts as alleged herein;

(b) Whether statements made by defendants to the investing
     public during the Class Period misrepresented material facts
     about the business, operations, and management of The9;
(c) Whether Defendants failed to disclose material facts about
     the business, operations, and management of The9 during the
     Class Period, and;

(d) To what extent the members of the Class have sustained
     damages and the proper measure of damages.

In April 2009 Blizzard ended its licensing agreement with The9 to
operate WoW in China choosing NetEase.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTES) in
its place. The suit seeks to establish the history of The9's
negotiations with Blizzard and compare it to public statements
that the company issued regarding the status of those
negotiations. In some instances the lawsuit claims that The9 made
assertions about the successful progress in renegotiating the
license when in fact it had not even begun formal negotiations
with Blizzard.

Another claim made by Mr. Glaser concerns share sales by The9's
management and other company insiders during the period covered
by the suit.  The lawsuit lists three pages of share sales that
it deems "unusual and suspicious in timing and amount" but it's
not clear to Mr. Herman what makes them suspicious.  Mr. Herman
assumes the implication is that the named companies and
individuals were trading on inside-information but it is not
spelled out well enough to assess the validity of that claim.  
The sales that are being questioned amount to US$125 million.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Joseph Russello, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: 631-367-7100

               - and -  

          Richard E. Walden, Esq.
          WLADEN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          8201 Cantrell, Suite 315
          Little Rock, AR 72227
          Telephone: 501-907-7000

                            *********

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  * * *