CAR_Public/091112.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, November 12, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 224
  
                            Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Baydale" Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Fraudulent Advertising Suit in Calif.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Against Two Suits in Ill.
CORDISH CO: Mosaic Lounge Dress Code Called a Cloak for Racism

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Defending "Rivera" Demand in Arbitration
ENDO PHARMA: Hearing on Proposed Settlement Set for November 23
ENDO PHARMA: "Schroeder" Lawsuit in Mass. Voluntarily Dismissed
ENDO PHARMA: Continues to Defend "Hell" Lawsuit in Delaware
EXTREME NETWORKS: New York Court Approves Settlement Agreement

GANLEY INC: Ohio App. Ct. Says Class Certification Appropriate
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: McPhadden Samac Files Statement of Claim
L-1 IDENTITY: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Agreement
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Settlement of ERISA Action Pending Approval
OPNEXT INC: Indicates Securities Class Action Litigation Settled

OWENS COMMUNITY: Student Class Sues After Loss of Accreditation
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Appeal of "Galura" Suit Ruling Remains Pending
STARTEK INC: Court Gives Preliminary Nod to Settlement Agreement
TEXTRON INC: Faces Federal Securities Laws Violation Suit
TEXTRON INC: Facing Suits Over ERISA Violations in Rhode Island

                            *********

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Co.'s motion to dismiss a Consolidated Amended
complaint remains pending, according to the company's Oct. 30,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In December 2008, a putative class action captioned Obester v.
American Express Company, et. al., was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated certain ERISA
obligations by:

     -- allowing the investment of American Express Retirement
        Savings Plan assets in American Express common stock
        when American Express common stock was not a prudent
        investment;

     -- misrepresenting and failing to disclose material facts
        to Plan participants in connection with the
        administration of the Plan; and

     -- breaching certain fiduciary obligations.

The company is also a defendant in three other putative class
actions making allegations similar to those made in the Obester
matter:

     -- Tang v. American Express Company, et. al., filed on
        Dec. 29, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the
        Southern District of New York,

     -- Miner v. American Express Company et. al., filed on
        Feb. 4, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
        District of New York, and

     -- DiLorenzo v. American Express Company et. al., filed on
        Feb. 10, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the
        Southern District of New York.

American Express has filed a motion to dismiss these actions.

In April 2009, these actions were consolidated into a
Consolidated Amended complaint, captioned In Re American Express
ERISA Litigation.

American Express Company -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ --
is a global payments and travel company.  The company's principal
products and services are charge and credit payment card
products, and travel-related services offered to consumers and
businesses around the world.  The company's Global Consumer Group
offers a range of products and services, including charge and
lending (credit) card products for consumers and small businesses
worldwide; consumer travel services, and stored value products,
such as Travelers Cheques and pre-paid products.  The Global
Business-to-Business Group provides, among other products and
services, business travel, corporate cards, and other expense
management products and services; network services, and merchant
acquisition and merchant processing for the Company's network
partners and payments businesses.  On Feb. 29, 2008, the Company
completed the sale of its international banking subsidiary,
American Express Bank Ltd. (AEB), to Standard Chartered PLC.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Baydale" Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the putative class action captioned Baydale v.
American Express Co., Kenneth I. Chenault and Daniel Henryin the
Baydale, filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint,
according to the company's Oct. 30, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

On February 20, 2009, a putative class action captioned,
Brozovich v. American Express Co., Kenneth I. Chenault and Daniel
T. Henry, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The lawsuit alleged violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with certain alleged misstatements regarding the
credit quality of the company's credit card customers.

The purported class covered the period from March 1, 2007 to Nov.
12, 2008.

The action sought unspecified damages and costs and fees.

The Brozovich action was subsequently voluntarily dismissed.

On March 27, 2009, a putative class action, captioned Baydale v.
American Express Co., Kenneth I. Chenault and Daniel Henry, which
makes similar allegations to those made in the Brozovich action,
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

On Oct. 13, 2009, plaintiff in the Baydale action filed an
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the action.

American Express Company -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ --
is a global payments and travel company.  The company's principal
products and services are charge and credit payment card
products, and travel-related services offered to consumers and
businesses around the world.  The company's Global Consumer Group
offers a range of products and services, including charge and
lending (credit) card products for consumers and small businesses
worldwide; consumer travel services, and stored value products,
such as Travelers Cheques and pre-paid products.  The Global
Business-to-Business Group provides, among other products and
services, business travel, corporate cards, and other expense
management products and services; network services, and merchant
acquisition and merchant processing for the Company's network
partners and payments businesses.  On Feb. 29, 2008, the Company
completed the sale of its international banking subsidiary,
American Express Bank Ltd. (AEB), to Standard Chartered PLC.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Fraudulent Advertising Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action alleging misleading and fraudulent
advertising was filed against American Express Co., on Oct. 22,
2009, according to the company's Oct. 30, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In June 2006, a putative class action captioned Homa v. American
Express Company et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

The case alleges, generally, misleading and fraudulent
advertising of the "tiered" "up to 5 percent" cash rebates with
the Blue Cash card.

The complaint initially sought certification of a nationwide
class consisting of "all persons who applied for and received an
American Express Blue Cash card during the period from Sept. 30,
2003 to the present and who did not get the rebate or rebates
provided for in the offer."

On Dec. 1, 2006, however, plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint dropping the nationwide class claims and asserting
claims only on behalf of New Jersey residents who "while so
residing in New Jersey, applied for and received an American
Express Blue Cash card during the period from Sept. 30, 2003 to
the present."

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other unspecified
relief that the Court deems appropriate.

In May 2007, the Court granted the company's motion to compel
individual arbitration and dismissed the complaint.

Plaintiff appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, and on Feb. 24, 2009, the Third Circuit
reversed the decision and remanded the case back to the District
Court for further proceedings.

On Oct. 22, 2009, the putative class action captioned Pagsolingan
v. American Express Company, et al., was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The case makes allegations that are largely similar to those made
in Homa, except that Pagsolingan alleges multiple theories of
liability and seeks to certify a nationwide class of "[a]ll
persons who applied for and received an American Express Blue
Cash card during the period from Sept. 30, 2003 to the present
and who did not get the rebate or rebates provided for in the
offer."

American Express Company -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ --
is a global payments and travel company.  The company's principal
products and services are charge and credit payment card
products, and travel-related services offered to consumers and
businesses around the world.  The company's Global Consumer Group
offers a range of products and services, including charge and
lending (credit) card products for consumers and small businesses
worldwide; consumer travel services, and stored value products,
such as Travelers Cheques and pre-paid products.  The Global
Business-to-Business Group provides, among other products and
services, business travel, corporate cards, and other expense
management products and services; network services, and merchant
acquisition and merchant processing for the Company's network
partners and payments businesses.  On Feb. 29, 2008, the Company
completed the sale of its international banking subsidiary,
American Express Bank Ltd. (AEB), to Standard Chartered PLC.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Against Two Suits in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Co. continues defending two putative class
actions relating primarily to monthly service fee charges,
according to the company's Oct. 30, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

In January 2009, the company signed a Memorandum of Understanding
to resolve claims raised in a putative class action captioned
Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related Services, pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Since such time, the parties have entered into a settlement
agreement that was submitted to the Court for preliminary
approval, and a ruling on preliminary approval remains pending.

The allegations in Kaufman relate primarily to monthly service
fee charges, with the critical claim being that the company's
gift card product violates consumer protection statutes because
consumers allegedly have difficulty spending small residual
amounts on the gift cards prior to the imposition of monthly
service fees.

The proposed Settlement Class consists of "All purchasers,
recipients and holders of all gift cards issued by American
Express from Jan. 1, 2002 through the date of preliminary
approval of the Settlement, including without limitation, gift
cards sold at physical retail locations, via the internet, or
through mall co-branded programs."

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, in addition to
certain non-monetary relief, the company would pay $3 million
into a settlement fund.

Members of the settlement class would then be entitled to submit
claims against the settlement fund to receive refunds of certain
gift card fees, and any monies remaining in the settlement fund
after payment of all claims would be paid to charity.

In addition, the company would make available to the settlement
class for a period of time the opportunity to buy gift cards with
no purchase fee. Finally, the Company would be responsible for
paying class counsel's reasonable fees and expenses and certain
expenses of administering the class settlement.

The company is also a defendant in two other putative class
actions making allegations similar to those made in Kaufman:

     -- Goodman v. American Express Travel Related Services,
        pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
        District of New York, and

     -- Jarratt v. American Express Company, filed in California
        state court in San Diego.

If the Kaufman settlement ultimately receives final approval, all
related gift cards claims and suits would also be released.

American Express Company -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ --
is a global payments and travel company.  The company's principal
products and services are charge and credit payment card
products, and travel-related services offered to consumers and
businesses around the world.  The company's Global Consumer Group
offers a range of products and services, including charge and
lending (credit) card products for consumers and small businesses
worldwide; consumer travel services, and stored value products,
such as Travelers Cheques and pre-paid products.  The Global
Business-to-Business Group provides, among other products and
services, business travel, corporate cards, and other expense
management products and services; network services, and merchant
acquisition and merchant processing for the Company's network
partners and payments businesses.  On Feb. 29, 2008, the Company
completed the sale of its international banking subsidiary,
American Express Bank Ltd. (AEB), to Standard Chartered PLC.


CORDISH CO: Mosaic Lounge Dress Code Called a Cloak for Racism
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Martin, writing for The Pitch at http://blogs.pitch.com
reports that debate about the Power & Light District's
controversial dress code is moving from City Hall to the Jackson
County courthouse.

Standing near the entrance to the KC Live! block, members of an
extended African-American family described the discrimination
they felt they encountered on a visit to the downtown
entertainment district in August.  The family is represented by:

          Arthur A. Benson II, Esq.
          Arthur Benson & Associates
          P.O. Box 119007
          Kansas City, MO 64171-9007
          Telephone: (816) 531-6565

who says venues inside the district monitor racial composition in
an effort to prevent the clientele mix from getting "too dark."

Last week, Mr. Benson sent a letter to the Missouri Commission on
Human Rights on behalf of Khiana Leapheart, a 34-year-old Kansas
City, Missouri, resident.  The letter states that Ms. Leapheart
and six relatives celebrating a family reunion were prevented
from entering Mosaic Lounge because the much-debated dress code
was unfairly enforced.

A member of Leapheart's party, J.D. Bell III, told Mr. Martin
that a door attendant at Mosaic asked him to tuck in his shirt.
Mr. Bell says he complied but was still denied entrance, even as
similarly dressed whites were allowed in the club.  

Leatrice Ragsdale, who also attended the press conference, said
the group of relatives received no explanation for Mr. Bell's
continued denial of admittance.  "There was no excuse," he said.

Mr. Benson accused the Cordish Co., the Power & Light District
developer, which operates Mosaic through a subsidiary, of using
its dress code to maintain "a certain level of minority
participation above which they don't want to go."

Mr. Benson encouraged door workers and other former Power & Light
personnel to come forward and confirm the allegation.  He is also
seeking to represent other individuals who can describe instances
when they felt they received biased treatment at Power & Light.
Mr. Benson offered an e-mail address: urbandresscodes@gmail.com.
There's also a Facebook page.

Zed Smith, Cordish's director of operations, stood to the side as
the prospective plaintiffs (Mr. Benson needs a right-to-sue
letter before he can file a case) addressed the media.  Mr. Smith
would not comment on the allegations about the August night at
Mosiac.  He stated that Power & Light does not discriminate in
"any form or fashion."

Mr. Smith said that every tenant in the Power & Light District
must comply with the dress code the city created earlier this
year.  Staff, he continued, receives regular training, and he
noted that Cordish had engaged Harmony, a Kansas City human-
relations company that develops "cultural competence."

Mr. Smith stressed that the district receives 6 million visits in
a year.  Asked why Cordish insists on using a dress code, given
its tendency to incite controversy, Mr. Smith cited a Kansas City
police report which states that dress codes help improve public
safety.

Mr. Benson did not call on Cordish to eliminate attire from
consideration.  "We don't care about dress codes," he said.  "We
care about race discrimination."


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Defending "Rivera" Demand in Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. defends itself against the allegations
in a putative class-action demand in arbitration.

On May 28, 2008, the putative class-action demand in arbitration
captioned Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc., was filed with the American Arbitration
Association.

The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC students from the
Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland campuses.

The arbitration demand alleges violations of California's
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud and
intentional deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
contract and unjust enrichment/restitution, all related to
alleged deficiencies and misrepresentations regarding the HVAC
program at these two campuses.

The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVAC
students in the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland
campuses over the past four years, and seek recovery of
compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution and
attorneys' fees and costs.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 29, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter year ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89
schools in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario,
Canada.  The company offers a range of diploma programs and
associate's, bachelors and master's degrees.  The training
programs include healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical,
trades, business and information technology.  Since the
company's formation in 1995, it has acquired 74 colleges and has
opened 32 branch campuses.  The company offers online education
to two categories of students, including those attending online
classes exclusively, and those attending a blend of traditional
classroom and online courses.


ENDO PHARMA: Hearing on Proposed Settlement Set for November 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug. 28, 2009, the Court approved a proposed Scheduling Order
for the settlement of the Gober Action, setting a hearing on the
fairness of the proposed settlement on Nov. 23, 2009.

The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has set a Nov. 23,
2009 hearing for the approval of the Stipulation of Settlement in
the matter captioned Gober v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, et al., C.A.
No. 4276, according to Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc.'s Oct.
29, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept.30, 2009.

On Jan. 5, 2009, the company, BTB Purchaser Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Endo, and Indevus entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger, pursuant to which Endo will acquire Indevus.  
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, and subject to the
conditions thereof, Endo, through BTB Purchaser, agreed to
commence a cash tender offer to purchase all of the issued and
outstanding shares of the common stock of Indevus. On Feb. 23,
2009, the company completed its initial tender offer for all
outstanding shares of common stock of Indevus.  The company
completed its acquisition of Indevus on March 23, 2009.

As a result of the offer, a number of complaints seeking
certification of a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company, BTB Purchaser, Indevus and each of Indevus's directors:

     -- on Jan. 9, 2009, a purported stockholder of Indevus
        filed a complaint seeking certification of a class
        action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of
        Delaware, docketed as Gober v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,
        et al., C.A. No. 4276 (Del. Ch.),

     -- on Jan. 12, 2009, a purported stockholder of Indevus
        filed a complaint seeking certification of a class
        action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth
        of Massachusetts, docketed as Scroeder [sic] v. Endo
        Pharmaceuticals, et al., 09-0126,

     -- on Jan. 13, 2009, a purported stockholder of Indevus
        filed a complaint seeking certification of a class
        action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth
        of Massachusetts, docketed as Wexler v. Indevus
        Pharmaceuticals, et al., 09-0166,

     -- on Jan. 20, 2009, a purported stockholder of Indevus
        filed a complaint seeking certification of a class
        action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of
        Delaware, docketed as Mishket v. Cooper, et al.,
        C.A. No. 4299, and

     -- on Jan. 30, 2009, a purported stockholder of Indevus
        filed a complaint seeking certification of a class
        action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of
        Delaware, docketed as Hell v. Indevus Pharmaceuticals,
        et al., C.A. No. 4327.

The Gober Action purports to be brought individually and on
behalf of all public stockholders of Indevus.

The Gober Action alleges that Indevus's director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Indevus's stockholders in
connection with the Offer and that each of the defendants aided
and abetted such alleged breach of Indevus's director defendants'
fiduciary duties.

Based on these allegations, the actions seek, among other relief,
declaring the action to be a class action, injunctive relief
enjoining preliminarily and permanently the Offer, rescinding, to
the extent already implemented, the Offer or any of the terms
thereof or awarding rescissory damages, directing that the
defendants account to plaintiff and other members of the
purported class for all damages caused by them and account for
all profits and any special benefits obtained as a result of
breaches of their fiduciary duties to the purported stockholder
and other members of the purported class, awarding plaintiff the
costs of the Gober Action including a reasonable allowance for
the expenses of plaintiffs' attorneys and experts and granting
plaintiff and other members of the purported class such further
relief as the court deems just and proper.

On Feb. 4, 2009, the parties to the Gober Action, Mishket Action,
Wexler Action, and Schroeder Action executed a Memorandum of
Understanding, setting forth the terms and conditions for
settlement of each of the actions.

The Memorandum of Understanding does not include the plaintiff in
the Hell Action.

The parties agreed that, after arm's length discussions between
and among the parties, Indevus will provide additional
supplemental disclosures to its Schedule 14D-9 and that the
Company Termination Fee, as defined in the Merger Agreement, will
be reduced by 10% (from $20,000,000 to $18,000,000).
In exchange, following confirmatory discovery, the parties will
attempt in good faith to agree to a stipulation of settlement
and, upon court approval in the Gober Action of that stipulation,
the Plaintiffs will dismiss each of the actions with prejudice,
and the Defendants will be released from any claims arising out
of the Proposed Transaction.

The Defendants have agreed not to oppose any fee application by
Plaintiffs' counsel that does not exceed $700,000 in the
aggregate.

On Aug. 26, 2009, after a period of confirmatory discovery, a
Stipulation of Settlement was filed with the Court of Chancery in
the Gober Action.

On Aug. 28, 2009, the Court approved a proposed Scheduling Order
for the settlement of the Gober Action, setting a hearing on the
fairness of the proposed settlement on Nov. 23, 2009.

Under the terms of the Scheduling Order, notice of the proposed
settlement was mailed to shareholders on or before Sept. 28,
2009.

Under the terms of the Stipulation, upon court approval in the
Gober Action, the Plaintiffs in the Mishket and Wexler Actions
will dismiss each of their respective actions with prejudice, and
the Defendants will be released from any claims arising out of
the Proposed Transaction.

Endo and BTB Purchaser have denied, and continue to deny, that
either of them has committed or aided and abetted in the
commission of any violation of law of any kind or engaged in any
of the wrongful acts.

Endo and BTB Purchaser each expressly maintains that it has
diligently and scrupulously complied with its legal duties, and
has executed the Memorandum of Understanding solely to eliminate
the burden and expense of further litigation.

Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc. -- http://www.endo.com/-- is  
a specialty pharmaceutical company in pain management.  The
company is engaged in the research, development, sales and
marketing of branded and generic pharmaceutical products
primarily to treat and manage pain.  Its portfolio of branded
products includes Lidoderm, Opana ER, Percocet, and Frova.  It
concentrates on generics that have one or more barriers to market
entry, such as complex formulation, regulatory or legal
challenges or difficulty in raw material sourcing.  During the
year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the branded products and non-branded
generic portfolio comprised approximately 93% and 7%,
respectively, of the Company's net sales.  It markets its branded
pharmaceutical products to prescribing physicians in pain
management, neurology, surgery, anesthesiology, oncology and
primary care.  In March 2009, Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc.
completed the acquisition of Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


ENDO PHARMA: "Schroeder" Lawsuit in Mass. Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit docketed as Scroeder [sic] v. Endo
Pharmaceuticals, et al., 09-0126, has been voluntarily dismissed,
according to Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc.'s Oct. 29, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept.30, 2009.

On Jan. 5, 2009, the company, BTB Purchaser Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Endo, and Indevus entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger, pursuant to which Endo will acquire Indevus.  
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, and subject to the
conditions thereof, Endo, through BTB Purchaser, agreed to
commence a cash tender offer to purchase all of the issued and
outstanding shares of the common stock of Indevus. On Feb. 23,
2009, the company completed its initial tender offer for all
outstanding shares of common stock of Indevus.  The company
completed its acquisition of Indevus on March 23, 2009.

As a result of the offer, a number of complaints seeking
certification of a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company, BTB Purchaser, Indevus and each of Indevus's directors:

     -- on Jan. 9, 2009, a purported stockholder of Indevus
        filed a complaint seeking certification of a class
        action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of
        Delaware, docketed as Gober v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,
        et al., C.A. No. 4276 (Del. Ch.),

     -- on Jan. 12, 2009, a purported stockholder of Indevus
        filed a complaint seeking certification of a class
        action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth
        of Massachusetts, docketed as Scroeder [sic] v. Endo
        Pharmaceuticals, et al., 09-0126,

     -- on Jan. 13, 2009, a purported stockholder of Indevus
        filed a complaint seeking certification of a class
        action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth
        of Massachusetts, docketed as Wexler v. Indevus
        Pharmaceuticals, et al., 09-0166,

     -- on Jan. 20, 2009, a purported stockholder of Indevus
        filed a complaint seeking certification of a class
        action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of
        Delaware, docketed as Mishket v. Cooper, et al.,
        C.A. No. 4299, and

     -- on Jan. 30, 2009, a purported stockholder of Indevus
        filed a complaint seeking certification of a class
        action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of
        Delaware, docketed as Hell v. Indevus Pharmaceuticals,
        et al., C.A. No. 4327.

The Schroeder Action purports to be brought individually and on
behalf of all public stockholders of Indevus.

The Schroeder Action alleges that Indevus's director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Indevus's stockholders in
connection with the Offer and that each of the defendants aided
and abetted such alleged breach of Indevus's director defendants'
fiduciary duties.

Based on these allegations, the Schroeder Action seeks, among
other relief, declaring the action to be a class action,
injunctive relief enjoining preliminarily and permanently the
Offer, rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the Offer
or any of the terms thereof or awarding rescissory damages,
directing that the defendants account to plaintiff and other
members of the purported class for all damages caused by them and
account for all profits and any special benefits obtained as a
result of breaches of their fiduciary duties to the purported
stockholder and other members of the purported class, awarding
plaintiff the costs of the Schroeder Action including a
reasonable allowance for the expenses of plaintiffs' attorneys
and experts and granting plaintiff and other members of the
purported class such further relief as the court deems just and
proper.

On Feb. 4, 2009, the parties to the Gober Action, Mishket Action,
Wexler Action, and Schroeder Action executed a Memorandum of
Understanding, setting forth the terms and conditions for
settlement of each of the actions.

The Memorandum of Understanding does not include the plaintiff in
the Hell Action.

The parties agreed that, after arm's length discussions between
and among the parties, Indevus will provide additional
supplemental disclosures to its Schedule 14D-9 and that the
Company Termination Fee, as defined in the Merger Agreement, will
be reduced by 10% (from $20,000,000 to $18,000,000).
In exchange, following confirmatory discovery, the parties will
attempt in good faith to agree to a stipulation of settlement
and, upon court approval in the Gober Action of that stipulation,
the Plaintiffs will dismiss each of the actions with prejudice,
and the Defendants will be released from any claims arising out
of the Proposed Transaction.

The Defendants have agreed not to oppose any fee application by
Plaintiffs' counsel that does not exceed $700,000 in the
aggregate.

On July 2, 2009, the Schroeder Action was voluntarily dismissed
with prejudice as to Plaintiff Schroeder.

Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc. -- http://www.endo.com/-- is  
a specialty pharmaceutical company in pain management.  The
company is engaged in the research, development, sales and
marketing of branded and generic pharmaceutical products
primarily to treat and manage pain.  Its portfolio of branded
products includes Lidoderm, Opana ER, Percocet, and Frova.  It
concentrates on generics that have one or more barriers to market
entry, such as complex formulation, regulatory or legal
challenges or difficulty in raw material sourcing.  During the
year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the branded products and non-branded
generic portfolio comprised approximately 93% and 7%,
respectively, of the Company's net sales.  It markets its branded
pharmaceutical products to prescribing physicians in pain
management, neurology, surgery, anesthesiology, oncology and
primary care.  In March 2009, Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc.
completed the acquisition of Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


ENDO PHARMA: Continues to Defend "Hell" Lawsuit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc. continues to defend a lawsuit
filed by a purported stockholder of Indevus Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., according to the company's Oct. 29, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept.30, 2009.

On Jan. 5, 2009, the company, BTB Purchaser Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Endo, and Indevus entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger, pursuant to which Endo will acquire Indevus.  
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, and subject to the
conditions thereof, Endo, through BTB Purchaser, agreed to
commence a cash tender offer to purchase all of the issued and
outstanding shares of the common stock of Indevus. On Feb. 23,
2009, the company completed its initial tender offer for all
outstanding shares of common stock of Indevus.  The company
completed its acquisition of Indevus on March 23, 2009.

As a result of the offer, a number of complaints seeking
certification of a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company, BTB Purchaser, Indevus and each of Indevus's directors:

     -- on Jan. 9, 2009, a purported stockholder of Indevus
        filed a complaint seeking certification of a class
        action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of
        Delaware, docketed as Gober v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,
        et al., C.A. No. 4276 (Del. Ch.),

     -- on Jan. 12, 2009, a purported stockholder of Indevus
        filed a complaint seeking certification of a class
        action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth
        of Massachusetts, docketed as Scroeder [sic] v. Endo
        Pharmaceuticals, et al., 09-0126,

     -- on Jan. 13, 2009, a purported stockholder of Indevus
        filed a complaint seeking certification of a class
        action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth
        of Massachusetts, docketed as Wexler v. Indevus
        Pharmaceuticals, et al., 09-0166,

     -- on Jan. 20, 2009, a purported stockholder of Indevus
        filed a complaint seeking certification of a class
        action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of
        Delaware, docketed as Mishket v. Cooper, et al.,
        C.A. No. 4299, and

     -- on Jan. 30, 2009, a purported stockholder of Indevus
        filed a complaint seeking certification of a class
        action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of
        Delaware, docketed as Hell v. Indevus Pharmaceuticals,
        et al., C.A. No. 4327.

The Hell Action purports to be brought individually and on behalf
of all public stockholders of Indevus.

The Hell Action alleges that Indevus's director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Indevus's stockholders in
connection with the Offer and that Endo and Merger Sub aided and
abetted such alleged breach by the Indevus director defendants.

The Hell Action also alleges that the Indevus Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation Statement fails to disclose material information
about the Offer, that the defendant directors did not protect
against purported conflicts of interest and that the terms of the
Merger Agreement prevent stockholders of Indevus from receiving
appropriate consideration for their Indevus shares.

Based on these allegations, the Hell Action seeks, among other
relief, declaring the action to be a class action on, enjoining,
preliminarily and permanently, the Offer, rescinding the Offer or
granting damages to the extent the Offer has been consummated,
directing that the defendants account for all damages, profits
and special benefits obtained as a result of their purportedly
unlawful conduct, awarding plaintiff the costs and disbursements
of the Hell Action including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees and granting such other and further relief as the court
deems just and proper.

On Feb. 4, 2009, the parties to the Gober Action, Mishket Action,
Wexler Action, and Schroeder Action executed a Memorandum of
Understanding, setting forth the terms and conditions for
settlement of each of the actions.

The Memorandum of Understanding does not include the plaintiff in
the Hell Action.

Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc. -- http://www.endo.com/-- is  
a specialty pharmaceutical company in pain management.  The
company is engaged in the research, development, sales and
marketing of branded and generic pharmaceutical products
primarily to treat and manage pain.  Its portfolio of branded
products includes Lidoderm, Opana ER, Percocet, and Frova.  It
concentrates on generics that have one or more barriers to market
entry, such as complex formulation, regulatory or legal
challenges or difficulty in raw material sourcing.  During the
year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the branded products and non-branded
generic portfolio comprised approximately 93% and 7%,
respectively, of the Company's net sales.  It markets its branded
pharmaceutical products to prescribing physicians in pain
management, neurology, surgery, anesthesiology, oncology and
primary care.  In March 2009, Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc.
completed the acquisition of Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


EXTREME NETWORKS: New York Court Approves Settlement Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
approved the settlement in the consolidated securities fraud
class action complaint captioned In re Extreme Networks, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-6143,
according to the company's Oct. 30, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 27, 2009.

Beginning on July 6, 2001, purported securities fraud class
action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The cases were consolidated and the litigation is now captioned
as In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-6143 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), related
to In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92
(SAS) (S.D.N.Y.).

The operative amended complaint names as defendants the company;
six of the company's present and former officers and/or
directors, including the company's former CEO and current
Chairman of the Board (the "Extreme Networks Defendants"); and
several investment banking firms that served as underwriters of
the company's initial public offering and October 1999 secondary
offering.

The complaint alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
         to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
         excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.

The cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes.

The parties to the lawsuits have reached a settlement, under
which the company would not be required to make any cash
payments.

On Oct. 6, 2009, the Court approved the settlement.

Certain objectors have filed an interlocutory appeal to the order
approving the settlement.

Extreme Networks, Inc. -- http://www.extremenetworks.com/--  
together with its subsidiaries, is a provider of network
infrastructure equipment and services for enterprises, data
centers, and metropolitan telecommunications service providers.  
The company's product categories include stackable ethernet
switching systems; modular ethernet switching systems; wireless
ethernet controllers and access points, and centralized
management software.  Its customers include businesses,
hospitals, schools, hotels, telecommunications companies and
government agencies around the world.  The company operates in
various geographical areas, such as United States, Canada,
Central America, Europe, Middle East, Africa, South America, Asia
Pacific and Japan.


GANLEY INC: Ohio App. Ct. Says Class Certification Appropriate
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Court of Appeals says the trial court was too quick to
reject certification of a plaintiff class in a lawsuit brought by
the purchaser of a used automobile against the dealer.  

A copy of the decision in Konarzewski, et al. v. Ganley, Inc., et
al., No. 92623 (Ohio App., 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inohco20091105690

Mr. Konarzewski is represented by:

          Michael L. Fine, Esq.
          PETRONZIO, SCHNEIER CO., L.P.A.
          5001 Mayfield Road, Suite 201
          Cleveland, OH 44124

               - and -  

          Lewis A. Zipkin, Esq.
          ZIPKIN WHITING CO., L.P.A.
          Zipkin Whiting Building
          3637 South Green Road
          Beachwood, OH 44122

Ganley is represented by:

          David D. Yeagley, Esq.
          Paul R. Harris, Esq.
          ULMER & BERNE, L.L.P.
          Skylight Office Tower
          1660 West 2nd Street, Suite 1100
          Cleveland, OH 44113-1448


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: McPhadden Samac Files Statement of Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
Toronto law firm McPhadden Samac Tuovi commenced a proposed class
action against Johnson & Johnson and related companies relative
to the injectable collagen dermal filler Evolence.

The Evolence claim involves people who were injected with
Evolence and allegedly developed side effects that in some cases
included disfiguring nodule formation. It is alleged that Johnson
& Johnson and related companies failed to warn the public about
the potential of these adverse effects.

The plaintiff is Mara Micevic of Oakville, Ontario. Ms. Micevic
says that she was injected with Evolence to eliminate, or at
least reduce, wrinkles around her mouth. She wanted to look
better and instead ended up with painful and visible nodules in
her lips. "It is almost three years since my injection and I am
still suffering the painful effects," says Ms. Micevic.

Ms. Micevic says that she was not aware beforehand that Evolence
might have this effect on her.

The claim is on behalf of all residents of Canada who were
injected with Evolence and allege that they suffered injuries and
damages.

The amount claimed is $15 million.

Zoran Samac, one of Ms. Micevic's lawyers, said "Manufacturers of
beauty enhancement products owe a duty to warn the public of the
potential dangers of their products so that it is possible to
properly weigh the risks before using those products."
A copy of the statement of claim is available at:

     http://media3.marketwire.com/docs/evolenceclaim.pdf


L-1 IDENTITY: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
gave its final approval to the settlement in the consolidated
class action against L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc.'s acquired
business, Digimarc Corporation, according to the company's Oct.
30, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In connection with the company's August 2008 acquisition of Old
Digimarc, which consisted of its Secure ID Business following the
spin-off of its digital watermarking business, the company
assumed certain legal proceedings of Old Digimarc.

Beginning in May 2001, a number of substantially identical class
action complaints alleging violations of the federal securities
laws were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York naming approximately 300 companies,
including Old Digimarc, and their officers and directors and
underwriters as defendants in connection with the initial public
offerings of these companies.

The complaints were subsequently consolidated into a single
action, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed in April
2002.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
underwriters of Old Digimarc's initial public offering violated
securities laws by failing to disclose certain alleged
compensation arrangements in Old Digimarc's initial public
offering registration statement and by engaging in manipulative
practices to artificially inflate the price of Old Digimarc's
stock in the aftermarket subsequent to the initial public
offering.

Old Digimarc and certain of its officers and directors are named
in the amended complaint pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on the basis of an alleged failure to
disclose the underwriters' alleged compensation arrangements and
manipulative practices.

The complaint sought unspecified damages.

The individual officer and director defendants entered into
tolling agreements and, pursuant to a court order dated Oct. 9,
2002, were dismissed from the litigation without prejudice.

The plaintiffs have continued to litigate their claims primarily
against the underwriter defendants.

The district court directed that the litigation proceed within a
number of "focus cases" rather than in all of the 309 cases that
have now been consolidated.

Old Digimarc was not one of these focus cases.

On Dec. 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed the district court's class certification decision for
the nine focus cases.

On Aug. 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their second consolidated
amended class action complaints against the focus cases and on
Sept. 27, 2007, again moved for class certification.

On Nov. 12, 2007, certain of the defendants in the focus cases
moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended class action
complaints.

The court issued an opinion and order on March 26, 2008, denying
the motion to dismiss except as to Section 11 claims raised by
those plaintiffs who sold their securities for a price in excess
of the initial offering price and those who purchased outside the
previously certified class period.

The class certification motion was withdrawn without prejudice on
Oct. 10, 2008.

On Feb. 25, 2009, liaison counsel for the plaintiffs informed the
district court that a settlement had been agreed to in principle,
subject to formal approval by the parties, and preliminary and
final approval by the Court.

On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement among
the plaintiffs, issuer defendants (including Old Digimarc) and
underwriter defendants, providing for a global settlement of $586
million, was submitted to the Court for preliminary approval.

Old Digimarc's portion of the settlement, which is wholly
immaterial, is covered entirely by insurance.

On June 10, 2009, the Judge granted preliminary approval for the
parties to proceed with settlement on the terms previously
submitted to the Court.

A hearing for final approval was held on Sept. 10, 2009, and on
Oct. 5, 2009, the Judge granted final approval of the settlement.

L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.l1id.com/-- provides  
a range of identity solutions and services that enable
governments, and businesses to enhance security, establish a
biometric-based identity, protect personal data and support
various intelligence requirements. L-1 operates in two business
segments: the Identity Solutions segment and the Services
segment.


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Settlement of ERISA Action Pending Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of Taylor v. McKelvey, et al., 06 CV 8322
(S.D.N.Y), pending against Monster Worldwide, Inc., and certain
former officers and directors of the company in connection with
its historical stock option grant practices, is subject to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's
approval, according to the company's Oct. 30, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The ERISA Class Action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York in October 2006 as a putative
class action litigation, purportedly brought on behalf of all
participants in the Company's 401(k) Plan.

The complaint, as amended in February 2007 and February 2008,
alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary obligations
to Plan participants under Sections 404, 405, 409 and 502 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act by allowing Plan
participants to purchase and to hold and maintain Company stock
in their Plan accounts without disclosing to those Plan
participants the company's historical stock option grant
practices.

On Sept. 14, 2009, the plaintiffs and the company entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding that memorializes the terms pursuant
to which the parties intend, subject to Court approval and
certification of the proposed class described in the second
amended complaint, to settle the ERISA Class Action.

The Memorandum of Understanding provides for a payment of $4.3
million in full settlement of the claims asserted in the ERISA
Class Action, a substantial majority of which will be paid by
insurance and contribution from another defendant.

The parties to the ERISA Class Action expect to enter into a
formal settlement agreement in the near future and to thereafter
seek Court approval.

Monster Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.monster.com/-- provides a  
global online employment solution, Monster.  With a presence in
markets in North America, Europe and Asia, Monster works by
connecting employers with job seekers at all levels and by
providing personalized career advice to consumers globally.  
Monster Worldwide delivers targeted audiences to advertisers.  
The company operates in three business segments: Monster Careers-
North America, Monster Careers-International, and Internet
Advertising & Fees.


OPNEXT INC: Indicates Securities Class Action Litigation Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Opnext, Inc., said it "reached a settlement agreement to resolve
its class action lawsuit, subject to final approval by the
court," as it reported second fiscal quarter results this week.  
No further details were provided in Opnext's press release.

Opnext, as related in the June 25, 2009, and Oct. 29, 2009,
editions of the Class Action Reporter, was in talks to settle
Bixler v. Opnext, Inc., et al. Case No. 08-cv-00920 (D. N.J.)
(Pisaon, J.).

Opnext -- http://www.opnext.com/-- (NASDAQ:OPXT) is the optical  
technology partner of choice supplying systems providers and OEMs
worldwide with the industry's largest portfolio of 10G and higher
next generation optical products and solutions.  The Company's
industry expertise, future-focused thinking and commitment to
research and development combine in bringing to market the most
advanced technology to the communications, defense, security and
biomedical industries.  Formed out of Hitachi, Opnext has built
on more than 30 years experience in advanced technology to
establish its broad portfolio of solutions and solid reputation
for excellence in service and delivering value to its customers.


OWENS COMMUNITY: Student Class Sues After Loss of Accreditation
---------------------------------------------------------------
From Wood County, Ohio, WTOL News reports that an attorney
representing students suing Owens Community College filed class
action lawsuit papers last week.

Owens' nursing school lost national accreditation.  Students
claim Owens knew about the possible accreditation loss in 2007,
but covered it up.

The new Vice President of the Nursing program says she does not
know when the school learned it was losing accreditation.

More than 460 students are estimated to be covered under the
classification, WFIN radio reports.  

NewsSpider.com indicates that the lawsuit was filed by four
nursing students in Wood County Common Pleas Court, the Honorable
Reeve Kelsey presiding, and the Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles E. Boyk, Esq.
          CHARLES BOYK LAW OFFICES, LLC
          National City Bank Building
          405 Madison Avenue, Suite 1200
          Toledo, OH 43604
          Telephone: 419-241-1395


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Appeal of "Galura" Suit Ruling Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Automotive, Inc., continues to appeal and defend the matter
Galura, et al. v. Sonic Automotive, Inc., filed in the Circuit
Court of Hillsborough County, Florida.

In this action, originally filed on December 30, 2002, the
plaintiffs allege that the company and its Florida dealerships
sold an antitheft protection product in a deceptive or otherwise
illegal manner, and further sought representation on behalf of
any customer of any of the company's Florida dealerships who
purchased the antitheft protection product since Dec. 30, 1998.

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief
on behalf of this class of customers.

In June 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of the requested class of customers, but the court
has made no finding to date regarding actual liability in this
lawsuit.

The company subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the court's
class certification ruling with the Florida Court of Appeals.

In April 2007, the Florida Court of Appeals affirmed a portion of
the trial court's class certification, and overruled a portion of
the trial court's class certification.

The company intends to continue its defense of this lawsuit,
including the appeal of the trial court's class certification
order, and to assert available defenses.

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

Sonic Automotive, Inc. -- http://www.sonicautomotive.com/--  
operates as an automotive retailer in the U.S.  Each of Sonic's
dealerships provides services, including sales of both new and
used cars and light trucks; sales of replacement parts and
performance of vehicle maintenance, warranty, paint and repair
services, and arrangement of extended service contracts,
financing and insurance and other aftermarket products for its
automotive customers.


STARTEK INC: Court Gives Preliminary Nod to Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado gave its
preliminary approval for the settlement executed by StarTek,
Inc., in the matter captioned West Palm Beach Firefighters'
Pension Fund v. StarTek, Inc., Civil Action No. 05-cv-01265-WDM-
MEH, according to the company's Oct. 30, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The company and six of its former directors and officers were
named as defendants in West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund
v. StarTek, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-cv-_____ (D. Colo.), filed
on July 8, 2005, and Alden v. StarTek, Inc., et al., Case No.
05-cv-_____ (D. Colo.), filed on July 20, 2005.

The two actions have been consolidated by the federal court.  

The consolidated action is a purported class action brought on
behalf of all persons who purchased shares of the company's
common stock in a secondary offering by certain of its
stockholders in June 2004, and in the open market between
Feb. 26, 2003 and May 5, 2005.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and misleading public statements about the company and its
business and prospects in the prospectus for the secondary
offering, as well as in filings with the SEC and in press
releases issued during the Class Period, and that as a result,
the market price of the company's common stock was artificially
inflated.

The complaints allege claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The plaintiffs in both cases seek compensatory damages on behalf
of the alleged class and award of attorneys' fees and costs of
litigation.

On May 23, 2006, the company and the individual defendants moved
the court to dismiss the action in its entirety.

On March 28, 2008, the motion was denied with respect to the
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, except the claim under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 was dismissed against two of the
individual defendants.  On the same date, the motion was granted
with respect to the claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 without prejudice to plaintiffs filing an
amended complaint with respect to such claims.

On May 19, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On June 5, 2008, the company and the individual defendants moved
the court to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety.

On Nov. 6, 2008, the motion was granted with respect to certain
claims relating to representations regarding the company's
supply-chain management business, but was denied as to all other
claims.

On July 20, 2009, the company executed a Stipulation of
Settlement with lead plaintiffs to settle the litigation.

Under the terms of the Stipulation, defendants will pay $7.5
million to completely resolve the Litigation, in exchange for a
release of all claims by lead plaintiffs and class members and a
dismissal of the Litigation with prejudice.

The company's primary insurance carrier has contributed $6.9
million and the company contributed $600,000 to the Settlement
Fund, as defined in the Stipulation.

The Court granted preliminary approval for the settlement on Oct.
8, 2009.

The completion of the settlement as set forth in the Stipulation
remains subject to various conditions, including notice to the
class members, a final hearing, and final approval by the Court.

StarTek, Inc. -- http://www.startek.com/-- is a leading provider
of high value business process outsourcing services to the
communications industry.  Since 1987 StarTek has partnered with
its clients to solve strategic business challenges so that fast-
moving businesses can improve customer retention, increase
revenue and reduce costs through an improved customer
experience.  These robust solutions leverage industry knowledge,
best business practices, highly skilled agents, proven
operational excellence and flexible technology.  The StarTek
comprehensive service suite includes customer care, sales
support, complex order processing, accounts receivable
management, technical support and other industry-specific
processes.  Headquartered in Denver, Colorado, StarTek provides
these services from 19 operational facilities in the U.S.,
Canada and the Philippines.


TEXTRON INC: Faces Federal Securities Laws Violation Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Textron Inc. is facing a purported shareholder class action
alleging violation the federal securities laws, according to the
company's Oct. 30, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 3,
2009.

On Aug. 13, 2009, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island against
Textron, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and its former
Chief Financial Officer.

The suit, filed by the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement
System, alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making material misrepresentations or
omissions related to Cessna and Textron Financial Corporation.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages.

Textron Inc. -- http://www.textron.com/-- is a multi-industry  
company that leverages its global network of aircraft, defense,
industrial and finance businesses to provide customers with
innovative solutions and services.  Textron is known around the
world for its powerful brands such as Bell Helicopter, Cessna
Aircraft Company, Jacobsen, Kautex, Lycoming, E-Z-GO, Greenlee,
and Textron Systems.


TEXTRON INC: Facing Suits Over ERISA Violations in Rhode Island
---------------------------------------------------------------
Textron Inc. is facing purported shareholder class actions
alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, according to the company's Oct. 30, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Oct. 3, 2009.

On August 21, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island by Dianne Leach, an
alleged participant in the Textron Savings Plan.

Five additional substantially similar class action lawsuits were
subsequently filed by other individuals.

The complaints varyingly name Textron and certain present and
former employees, officers and directors as defendants.

These lawsuits allege that the defendants violated the United
States Employee Retirement Income Security Act by imprudently
permitting participants in the Textron Savings Plan to invest in
Textron common stock.

The complaints seek equitable relief and unspecified compensatory
damages.

Textron Inc. -- http://www.textron.com/-- is a multi-industry  
company that leverages its global network of aircraft, defense,
industrial and finance businesses to provide customers with
innovative solutions and services.  Textron is known around the
world for its powerful brands such as Bell Helicopter, Cessna
Aircraft Company, Jacobsen, Kautex, Lycoming, E-Z-GO, Greenlee,
and Textron Systems.

                            *********

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  * * *