CAR_Public/091117.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 17, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 227
  
                            Headlines

AARP: Accused of Misrepresenting Medical Insurance Coverage
ABBOTT MEDICAL: Contact Lens Solution Purchasers' Class Certified
ATLANTIC RECORDING: Judge Sides With RIAA in 'Sham' Litigation
BROWN GROUP: Proposed Payment Plan in Colo. Chemical Release Suit
BURGER KING: NFA Files Class Action Suit Over Maximum Pricing

CHEVRON: 'Crude' Documentary Examines Class Action Lawsuit
CISCO OIL: S.D. Ga. Orders Public Notice of Fuel Fraud Proceeding
CITIBANK: Class Action Sought in R.I. Credit Card Rate Lawsuit
CITY OF CHARLOTTE: Report on Builders' Class Action Settlement
CITY OF HEATH: Sued, with Redflex, for Traffic Ticket Refunds

CITY OF MENASHA: Notice to Holders of Steam Utility Revenue Bonds
FACEBOOK: Kershaw Cutter Investigating Social Networking Games
HORIZON LINES: Del. Ct. Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit
INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Rules DRAM Class Certification Appropriate
KIA MOTORS: Hagens Berman Investigates Defective Kia Air Bags

MAIL BOXES ETC: Opt-Out Notices Sent to 3,000 Franchisees
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Settles Class Action Lawsuits for $435 Million
NEW MOTION: Preliminary Settlement Approved for 6 Million Users
NEW ORLEANS: La. App. Ct. Okays School Worker Class Certification
PRESSURE SENSITIVE LABELS: Plaintiff Recoveries Total $46.5 Mil.

STATE FARM: Calif. Shop Owners Intent on Pursing Class Action

* New U.K. Legislation Will Allow Consumer Classes to Sue Banks

                      New Securities Fraud Cases

BOEING CO: Dreamliner Optimism Leads to Securities Class Action
HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Dyer & Berens Files Complaint in E.D. Pa.
HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Holzer Holzer Files Complaint in E.D. Pa.
STEC INC: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Complaint in C.D. Calif.

* PwC Sees Decrease in Securities Class-Action Suits

                            *********

AARP: Accused of Misrepresenting Medical Insurance Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hood at ConsumerAffairs.com reports that AARP is taking more
heat over marketing of one of its insurance plans, as a Texas
couple files a class action lawsuit claiming that ads led them to
believe the group's Medical Advantage Plan -- which is no longer
being sold through AARP -- was a "primary insurance plan," rather
than one providing limited coverage for crucial medical care.
James and Alison Halperin received a packet touting the Medical
Advantage Plan in early 2008, and were so excited that they
dropped their existing policy and signed up. Shortly thereafter,
Alison was diagnosed with breast cancer and informed that she
would need costly surgery. In case that wasn't bad enough, the
Halperins were treated to another kick in the gut when they found
out their new AARP-provided plan wouldn't cover the urgent
procedure.

The Halperins' policy, provided by UnitedHealth Group, is a so-
called limited benefit plan: its coverage is limited to a
specific dollar amount.  Typical insurance plans, by contrast,
cover a percentage of all health-related costs, regardless of how
high the bill ends up being.  Unfortunately for the Halperins,
AARP's plan is especially stingy in its coverage of surgical
procedures, providing anywhere from a few hundred to $10,000,
depending on what kind of surgery is needed.

The plan's appeal lies in its relatively low premiums, attractive
for consumers who might have trouble attaining a traditional plan
or who are struggling in the still-gloomy economy. The plans are
targeted to consumers between 50 and 64. An AARP spokesman said
the plans were "not designed to be comprehensive insurance, nor
should they be communicated in this manner."

The Halperins accuse Washington, D.C.-based AARP of violating the
city's Consumer Protections Procedure Act.  Their complaint
alleges that "AARP has preyed upon Plaintiffs and thousands of
Americans over age 50 by luring unsuspecting consumers in need of
affordable health care to enroll in AARP's health insurance
program."

                           Plan Canceled

The Halperins' allegations are only the latest in a series of
claims that AARP misled consumers as to the extent of the plan's
coverage. Last year, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa sent a letter to
AARP's then-CEO Bill Novelli voicing concerns that consumers who
purchased the plan might not realize that it only provides
limited coverage. Grassley also sounded the alarm about Essential
Plus Health Insurance, a second AARP policy with similar terms as
the Medical Advantage Plan.

"Insurance is supposed to limit your exposure to the potentially
high cost of a serious illness," Grassley told USA Today. "These
plans do the opposite."

The ensuing firestorm led AARP to stop offering the plans,
technically known as "fixed-cash benefit indemnity plans."

                             Unkind year

All in all, 2009 has not been kind to AARP, Mr. Hood continues.

Approximately 60,000 seniors have canceled their memberships
since July, apparently in protest of the group's support for
health insurance reform. A competing, conservative-backed group -
creatively named the American Seniors Association - has been
trying to woo AARP members over to its side. While AARP
originally refused to back a specific bill, the group last week
endorsed the Affordable Health Care for America Act, the bill
currently snaking its way through Congress.

A copy of the Complaint in Halpern, et ux. v. AARP, et al., Case
No. 09-cv-02104 (D.C.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/13/AARP.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David S. Wachen, Esq.
          SHULMAN, ROGERS, GANDAL, PORDY & ECKER, P.A.
          12505 Park Potomac Ave., 6th Floor
          Potomac, MD 20854
          Telephone: 301-230-5200

               - and -  

          Jeffrey U. Carton, Esq.
          Jerome Noll, Esq.
          MEISELMAN, DENLEA, PACKMAN, CARTON & EBERZ, P.C.
          1311 Mamaroneck Ave.      
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: 914-517-5000

               - and -

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          FEAZELL & TIGHE LLP
          6300 Bridgepoint Parkway
          Bridgepoint 2, Suite 20
          Austin, TX 78730
          Telephone: 512-372-8100


ABBOTT MEDICAL: Contact Lens Solution Purchasers' Class Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An Orange County Superior Court Judge has certified a class
action against Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., on behalf of all
California consumers who purchased a contact lens solution the
Centers for Disease Control have linked to a parasitic infection
that can cause blindness or the complete loss of an eye.

"This decision was made possible by the landmark ruling of the
California Supreme Court in May that upheld the rights of
consumers to file class action lawsuits to protect themselves
against misleading advertising," said plaintiffs' lead trial
lawyer Mark Robinson, Esq., at Robinson, Calcagnie & Robinson in
Newport Beach.  The Supreme Court's ruling in In re Tobacco II
cases, No. S147345, reinstated a class action suit by smokers
against the tobacco industry.  Mr. Robinson argued for tobacco
smokers in the case.

Orange County Superior Court Judge David C. Velasquez issued the
certification ruling Nov. 12 against Santa Ana-based AMO,
formerly known as Advanced Medical Optics, which produced
Complete(R) MoisturePlus(TM) contact lens solution.  The FDA in
2007 directed the company to conduct a Class I recall of the
product, an action it reserves for situations in which it is
reasonably probable that use of the product will cause serious
injury or death.

Complete(R) MoisturePlus(TM) was part of the Complete(R) line of
eye care products that Abbott Laboratories, Inc., obtained when
it acquired Advanced Medical Optics earlier this year for $2.8
billion.

The plaintiffs are asking the company to refund to all California
consumers the money they paid to purchase Complete(R)
MoisturePlus(TM).

Lazar vs. Advanced Medical Optics, Case No. 07 CC 01296 (Calif.
Super. Ct., Orange Cty.), was filed on behalf of all California
consumers who purchased Complete(R) MoisturePlus(TM).  It alleges
that AMO misled consumers into believing the product would
effectively "clean" and "disinfect" their contact lenses even
though the solution did not disinfect against Acanthamoeba and
other harmful organisms that are known to contaminate contact
lenses.  The Acanthamoeba keratitis infection can inflict
terrible pain, rob victims of their vision, cause permanent
blindness and, in some cases, can result in the surgical removal
of the eye.

"This is a truly horrific infection that AMO could have and
should have prevented.  AMO put all consumers at risk," said
Ronald Labriola of Moore Labriola in Newport Beach, California,
co-lead counsel for the Class. Labriola also represents over 60
people who suffered significant injuries after using Complete(R)
MoisturePlus(TM).

"A product manufacturer cannot mislead consumers into believing
that a product does something that it does not do, nor can it
profit from such misrepresentations," said James Quadra, Esq., at
Moscone, Emblidge & Quadra in San Francisco, co-lead counsel for
the Class.  "Consumers deserve compensation for AMO's conduct."

A similar, nationwide class action against AMO is pending in
federal court in San Francisco.

Consumers who purchased Complete(R) MoisturePlus(TM) and want to
participate in either class action should contact:

          Mark Robinson, Esq.
          Robinson, Calcagnie & Robinson
          Telephone: 949-720-1288

          Ronald Labriola, Esq.
          Moore Labriola, LLP
          Telephone: 949-209-9820

          James Quadra, Esq.
          Moscone, Emblidge & Quadra, LLP
          Telephone: 415-362-3599

          Wendy Fleishman, Esq.
          Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
          Telephone: 212-355-9500

          Michael Schmidt, Esq.
          The Schmidt Firm
          Telephone: 866-223-3784


ATLANTIC RECORDING: Judge Sides With RIAA in 'Sham' Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Kravets at Wired News reports that a judge has dealt a
major blow to a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging the
Recording Industry Association of America's nearly six-year-old
courthouse campaign against file sharers amounted to nothing more
than "sham" litigation.

The Honorable Anna J. Brown ruled in Andersen v. Atlantic
Recording Corp., et al., Case No. 07-cv-00934 (D. Ore.), that the
RIAA has the right to bring civil lawsuits and is protected under
a legal doctrine allowing special interests to form trade groups
to protect their interests. The RIAA, the judge added, had an
"objective basis" to bring lawsuits against individuals connected
to IP addresses upon which file sharing is occurring.  A copy of
Judge Brown's 27-page Opinion dated Nov. 12, 2009, is available
at:

     http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/11/andersendecision.pdf

"The court, therefore, concludes on this record that plaintiff
has not established defendants filed a series of lawsuits based
on a policy of initiating legal proceedings without regard to the
merits," U.S. District Judge Brown says.  

Judge Brown's decision, however, did not immediately dismiss a
proposed class action to represent the perhaps 30,000 individuals
the RIAA has sued, although the decision likely portends as much.

"In summary, the court concludes defendant's conduct in
initiating the first action against plaintiff is protected by the
Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, and, therefore, defendants are
entitled to summary judgment with respect to all of plaintiffs
claims to the extent they arise out of defendants' initiation of
the first action," the judge ruled.

She ordered the RIAA and plaintiff's lawyers, by December 1, to
report to her what should happen next.

The RIAA has maintained that if it won on the claim decided
Thursday -- one of four in the lawsuit -- that the entire case
should be dismissed.

One of the class-action attorneys in the case:

          Lory Ray Lybek, Esq.
          LYBECK MURPHY, LLP
          7525 SE 24th St., Suite 500
          Mercer Island, WA 98040
          Telephone: 206-230-4255

does not agree.  In a telephone interview with Mr. Kravets, Mr.
Lybeck said the court could proceed with a class action, in which
the lawsuit's other allegations can be litigated. Those
allegations include civil conspiracy, abuse of legal process and
negligence.

Tanya Andersen of Oregon brought the proposed class action. The
RIAA dropped an infringement case against her in 2007 after
concluding her hard drive did not contain purloined music tracks
as alleged.  The RIAA initially claimed a Kazaa directory that
linked to her internet-protocol address was unlawfully
distributing thousands of songs.

A judge awarded her $68,685 in legal fees, and she counter-sued
with the proposed class action, alleging the RIAA has engaged in
a game of "sham" litigation.


BROWN GROUP: Proposed Payment Plan in Colo. Chemical Release Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                          DISTRICT COURT
                     CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
                         STATE OF COLORADO

   CAROL ANTOLOVICH et al.,     )
                                )
                Plaintiffs.     )
          v.                    )
                                )
   BROWN GROUP RETAIL,          )  Case Number: 2000CV1021
   INCORPORATED,a Pennsylvania  )
   Corporation, et al.,         )
                                )
                Defendants.     )

      NOTICE OF PROPOSED ALLOCATION PLAN FOR CLASS ACTION

                THIS NOTICE MAY EFFECT YOUR RIGHTS
                       PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

TO: (1) ALL PERSONS WHO AS OF MARCH 1, 2000 OWNED OR RESIDED ON
REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CLASS AREA (AS DEFINED BELOW) SOUTH OF
EAST MEXICO AVENUE; AND (2) ALL PERSONS WHO AS OF MARCH 26, 2001,
OWNED OR RESIDED ON REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CLASS AREA NORTH OF
EAST MEXICO AVENUE.  

The "Class Area," which is within Denver County is defined as
follows: NORTHERN BOUNDARY CHERRY CREEK SOUTHERN BOUNDARY EAST
EVANS AVENUE EASTERN BOUNDARY SOUTH MONACO PARKWAY WESTERN
BOUNDARY SOUTH HOLLY STREET IF YOU DID NOT EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM
THIS CASE BY FORMAL WRITTEN NOTICE AFTER NOTICE OF THIS ACTION
WAS SENT IN NOVEMBER 2002, THEN YOU ARE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
ALLOCATION PLAN FOR THIS CASE.

THE REASONS FOR THIS NOTICE

Certain persons approved by the Court to serve as Class
Representatives filed a lawsuit on behalf of the people
identified above as members of the Class.  The lawsuit claimed
that industrial chemicals were released into the soil and
groundwater at the former Redfield Rifle Scopes Manufacturing
Facility at 5800 East Jewell Avenue.  The suit claimed that the
chemical contamination left the Redfield Rifle Scopes Site and
entered the soil and groundwater in and through the Class Area.
The suit was filed against Brown Group Retail Inc., the owner of
the site and a former operator of the facility, as well as
Redfield Rifle Scopes Inc., an operator of the facility.  This
lawsuit sought to compensate members of the Class for damages
they incurred because of the Redfield contamination, based on
legal claims for trespass, nuisance, negligence, strict
liability, unjust enrichment, and punitive damages. The case was
eventually presented to a jury in an approximately three month
trial beginning in September 2003.  The jury found Brown Group
Retail, Inc. liable for negligence and awarded damages to
residential property owners after a reduction in the verdict for
non-parties.  The jury did not award any damages to the non-owner
residents who were members of the class.  The Plaintiffs appealed
the jury determination, the appeals are now final.  The amount
awarded by the jury, plus certain interest and costs, is now
ready to be distributed according to a Proposed Allocation Plan,
which the Court has approved preliminarily.  Persons and entities
that have been identified as members of the Class are being
advised by mail of their options with respect to allocation of
the amounts available for allocation. This notice is being
published because some Class Members may not receive the mailed
notice.  If you are a member of the Class but have not received
mailed information about your options, you should provide your
name and current address by calling or writing to the following
address and telephone number:

          Antolovich Class Action
          The Hannon Law Firm, LLC
          1641 Downing Street
          Denver, Colorado 80218
          Telephone: (303) 861-8800

You will then be mailed a more detailed explanation of your
options with respect to allocation available for distribution in
this lawsuit and be placed on the mailing list for future
information regarding this lawsuit.

     Dated: October 30, 2009     By: Hon. Morris B. Hoffman
                                     District Court Judge


BURGER KING: NFA Files Class Action Suit Over Maximum Pricing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christa Hoyland at QSRweb.com reports that Burger King's National
Franchisee Association (NFA) has filed its second class-action
lawsuit against the quick-service burger chain. The first regards
the franchisor's attempt to divert funds from a fountain beverage
rebate program to Burger King's marketing fund. The second, filed
Tuesday on behalf of owners of Burger King restaurants in the
United States, concerns Burger King Corporation's "maximum
pricing" policy.

The lawsuit alleges that BKC is violating the terms of the
parties' franchise agreements by purporting to mandate maximum
prices for certain products, even though the franchise agreements
do not grant BKC the right to set prices. At issue is the
company's decision to price its Double Cheeseburger for $1, a
price point franchisees voting against on several occasions this
summer.

National Franchisee Assoc. v. Burger King Corp., Case No. 09-cv-
23435 (S.D. Fla.) (Moore, J.), seeks a declaratory judgment from
the court. Specifically, the NFA is asking the court to declare
that "BKC does not have the authority under the Franchise
Agreements to dictate maximum prices," according to a news
release.

Burger King believes, however, that it has the right to make such
changes. The company provided the following statement:
"BKC believes the lawsuit is without merit. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided earlier this year that
BKC has the contractual right to require franchisee participation
in its BK Value Menu program."

                         NFA Disputes Policy

The NFA consists of 19 regional franchisee associations,
represents more than 80 percent of U.S. franchised Burger King
restaurants and serves as the official voice of the BKC
franchisee community.

The NFA said it filed the lawsuit after unsuccessful attempts to
encourage BKC to respect the historic rights of its independent
franchisees. The lawsuit states:

     The dispute between the parties is triggered by the
     position recently taken by BKC, contrary to decades of
     practice, that the general language of [the Franchise
     Agreement] gives it the power to set prices for its
     independently owned franchises.

The NFA is asking the court to declare that the franchise
agreements do not grant BKC the right to set prices, as shown by,
among other things, the parties' consistent practice and
understanding that as independent business owners the franchisees
retain the right to set their own menu board prices.

"Our franchisee community is united in protecting our
entrepreneurial rights as independent business owners, but we are
also disappointed that we need to take legal action against our
franchisor," said William Harloe Jr., NFA chairman and a
Maryland-based franchisee. "The mission statement of the NFA is
to preserve the economic well being of all members. After
attempts to compromise on maximum pricing were unsuccessful, we
have been forced to pursue a judicial resolution of this issue."

This is the second class action lawsuit that NFA franchisees have
initiated against their franchisor this year.  In May 2009, the
NFA filed lawsuits against Burger King, Coca-Cola, and Dr. Pepper
on behalf of all franchisees.  That action seeks a declaratory
judgment from the court that the franchisees are the intended
third-party beneficiaries under certain soft drink agreements and
are entitled to receive their franchisee restaurant operating
rebates, in full, as they have since 1990.

Mr. Harloe said that the NFA and its member franchisees prefer to
resolve the franchisee restaurant operating funds and maximum
pricing lawsuits amicably but that circumstances have left no
alternative except to pursue legal remedies to questions
concerning franchise agreements.


CHEVRON: 'Crude' Documentary Examines Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Turan at Tribune Newspapers reports that "Crude" sounds
like the standard "this is an outrage" environmental degradation
documentary, the latest in a line that includes "An Inconvenient
Truth" and films about the deaths of the oceans, the evaporation
of water, the murder of dolphins, even the disintegration of
dirt. "Crude" fits that bill, but it is something considerably
more interesting as well.

The outrage in question is the subject of a class action suit
filed by 30,000 residents of Ecuador against Chevron, the world's
fifth-largest corporation, alleging that 18 billion gallons of
toxic wastewater were dumped into the Amazon between 1972 and
1990, fatally poisoning the land and water and sickening
inhabitants. The lawsuit, with a potential cost to Chevron of $27
billion, has been going on for so long (16 years and counting)
that the original American oil company in Ecuador, Texaco, was
acquired by Chevron and no longer exists.

Director Joe Berlinger ("Brothers Keeper," " Metallica") has been
working on "Crude" for three years, and though he feared he was
coming too late to the story, a verdict is still not in sight.

"Crude" begins with a typical back-and-forth. In 2008, news clips
show Pablo Fajardo, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, and his
associate, Luis Yanza, receiving the prestigious Goldman
Environmental Prize. Then comes Chevron's reaction, as a
representative says that the men have in effect made up the story
for which they're being honored. What's going on here?

Next we see the charismatic Mr. Fajardo back in Ecuador and
visiting a tiny Amazon enclave where the residents discuss the
progress of the lawsuit.

We also spend a great deal of time with a Spanish-speaking
environmental lawyer from New York named Steven Donziger, someone
who specializes in class action suits and is a key legal adviser
to Mr. Fajardo.  We see and hear Mr. Donziger in all kinds of
privileged situations, even with Joseph Kohn, the Philadelphia
attorney whose firm is bankrolling the case and hopes to profit
financially if Chevron loses.

Mr. Donziger not only discusses legal strategy but works hard to
get the kind of publicity that will galvanize public opinion. His
courtship of the forceful Trudie Styler, the co-founder, along
with her husband, rock star Sting, of the Rainforest Foundation,
is a study in real-world political action.

Chevron's strategy is twofold. First is the culture of denial. To
see apparently sincere Chevron representatives flat-out
contradict everything the plaintiffs are saying shows the power
stonewalling has to, at the very least, create doubt.

Because that strategy doesn't work as well in Ecuador, where the
damage is visible and hard to talk away, Chevron is ready with a
moving-target series of fallback positions: Nothing was done that
wasn't permitted by law, the Ecuadorean government signed off on
a cleanup, most of the damage was done by the state-owned
Petroecuador. Chevron also likes to claim that the only reason
the suit was filed in the first place is because greedy U.S.
attorneys are after the company's money.

It's true that the plaintiffs wouldn't have a prayer without
American money and celebrity involvement, but does that mean
their claims are any less just? It's still a David-and-Goliath
story.  What's different is that David now has some choice
stones, Mr. Turan writes.


CISCO OIL: S.D. Ga. Orders Public Notice of Fuel Fraud Proceeding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Stepzinski at The Florida Times-Union reports that public
notices soon will appear nationwide announcing a class-action
lawsuit on behalf of past customers of two Camden County truck
stops and a gas station originally owned by Fairley Cisco.

Last week, Senior U.S. District Judge Anthony Alaimo directed the
lawyers in Smith, et al. v. Georgia Energy USA, LLC, et al., Case
No. 08-cv-00020 (S.D. Ga.), to place public notice of lawsuit in
newspapers including The Times-Union, Savannah Morning News and
USA Today.  Notice must also be placed in major trucking industry
publications, and Web sites available to the general public,
Alaimo ruled.

The notice will run once a week for four consecutive weeks
beginning no later than the end of the month. The lawyers then
must advertise the notice on at least two top Jacksonville and
Coastal Georgia radio stations, Judge Alaimo ordered

The notice must state that individuals or entities that bought
fuel from any of the Cisco stations from Jan. 1, 2005, to Feb.
12, 2008, might be members of the class action.  It also must
briefly explain the suit, and provide information about
consumers' rights in the case, according to Judge Alaimo's order.

The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Jonathan Smith, Streamline
Logistics LLC, Betty Padgett, B&L Express Inc., John Darnell,
Linda Fifield and Henry Edwards on behalf of themselves and
others unnamed on Feb. 14, 2008, in U.S. District Court at
Brunswick.

Their lawyers said in court documents that at least 300 people
have contacted them about joining the lawsuit, which seeks
$9,999,000.

The suit is just one of three cases bearing the Cisco name.

In addition to being a defendant in the class-action suit, Cisco,
67, of St. Marys, is among several defendants indicted in a
federal fraud case and a state racketeering complaint involving
the three businesses.

Although separate, the three cases contain similar accusations:
that fuel customers were cheated deliberately and systematically
at the Cisco Travel Plazas at Exit 1 and Exit 6 on Interstate 95
and the Cisco Express convenience store and gas station.

Cisco and his co-defendants have pleaded not guilty to the
indictment. They also have denied any wrongdoing or liability in
the class action suit and the racketeering complaint, court
records show.

Closed since January, the three fuel stops and stores will be
auctioned Dec. 1 on the Camden County Courthouse steps for
Alabama businessman Michael Nicholson, who had bought them from a
Tennessee bank.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C. Dorian Britt, Esq.
          Robert Bartley Turner, Esq.
          SAVAGE, TURNER, PINSON & KARSMAN, PC
          P.O. Box 10600
          Savannah, GA 31412
          Telephone: 912-231-1140

               - and -  

          Jeremy S. McKenzie, Esq.
          TATE LAW GROUP, LLC
          2 East Bryan Street, Suite 600
          Savannah, GA 31401
          Telephone: 912-234-3030

               - and -  

          Nathan T. Williams, Esq.
          CLARK & WILLIAMS, PC
          #5 St. Andrews Ct.
          Brunswick, GA 31527
          Telephone: 912-264-0848

Cisco Oil, Inc., Cisco Travel Plaza, Inc., Cisco Travel Plaza,
Inc. II, Althea Cisco Shave and Tammy Cisco Walker are
represented by:

          Steven Blackerby, Esq.
          Terry L. Readdick, Esq.
          Laura E. Roberts, Esq.
          BROWN, READDICK, BUMGARTNER, CARTER,
             STRICKLAND & WATKINS, LLP
          P.O. Box 220
          Brunswick, GA 31521-0220
          Telephone: 912-264-8544
      
Fairley Cisco is represented by:

          Peter M. Degnan, Esq.
          Gregory B. Mauldin, Esq.
          Kyle G.A. Wallace, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
          One Atlantic Center
          1201 W. Peachtree St.
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Telephone: 404-881-7000

               - and -  

          Stephen Gunn Dillard, Esq.
          Terry A. Dillard, Esq.
          DILLARD & DILLARD
          P.O. Box 898
          Waycross, GA 31502-0898
          Telephone: 912-285-2915

               - and -  

          Alex L. Zipperer, III, Esq.
          ZIPPERER, LORBERBAUM & BEAUVAIS
          P.O. Box 9147
          Savannah, GA 31412
          Telephone: 912-232-3770

Georgia Energy USA, LLC, Georgia Petro USA, LLC, Georgia Petro II
USA, LLC, Global Energy USA, LLC, Kingsland Management II, LLC,
Kingsland Management, LLC, Biju Abraham, and Jack Ghazi are
represented by:

          James B. Durham
          DURHAM, MCHUGH & DUNCAN, PC
          P.O. Box 2177
          Brunswick, GA 31521
          Telephone: 912-264-1800


CITIBANK: Class Action Sought in R.I. Credit Card Rate Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Grimaldi at the Providence Journal reports that a Rhode
Island woman is suing Citibank, claiming the financial giant is
trying to squeeze money out of its credit-card customers in
advance of changes in federal law due to take place in February
2010.

Murphy v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., Case No. 09c-v-00541 (D.
R.I.) (Smith, J.), was filed on Nov. 10, 2009, by:

          Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
          307 Chalkstone Avenue
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: 401-831-7730
          Telephone: 401-861-6064
          E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com

on behalf of Portsmouth resident Michol K. Murphy, and states
that Citibank has violated the terms of her credit-card agreement
by jacking up the annual percentage rate on her account without
cause.  Mr. Wasylyk is asking the court to certify the case as a
class-action lawsuit.

The lawsuit follows in the wake of an August case Mr. Wasylyk
filed against Citizens Financial Group on behalf of a Woonsocket
man who claims that ATM withdrawals and debit transactions are a
trap into which unwary customers fall.  That lawsuit -- Hunt v.
RBS Citizens, N.A. et al., Case No. 09-cv-00377 (D. R.I.) (Lisi,
J.) -- which also seeks certification as a class action, is still
pending.  Citizens is represented by:

          Robert G. Flanders, Jr., Esq.
          HINCKLEY, ALLEN & SNYDER LLP
          50 Kennedy Plaza, Suite 1500
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: 401-274-2000
          Fax: 401-277-9600
          E-mail: rflanders@haslaw.com

Consumers such as Murphy and Hunt have been complaining loudly
about the alleged abusive practices of financial institutions,
leading to the passage in May 2009 of the federal Credit Card
Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act.

In July 2009, Citibank notified Murphy that it was raising the
variable annual percentage rate on her card to 29.99 percent,
despite that her account was in good standing and that her
original credit agreement does not expire until April 30, 2010.


CITY OF CHARLOTTE: Report on Builders' Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In Vision Ventures Construction Services, Inc. v. City of
Charlotte, et al., Case No. 09-CVS-3551 (N.C. Super. Ct.,
Mecklenburg Cty.), a Plaintiff Class of building contractors and
construction companies asserted that they were improperly charged
with a privilege tax in excess of $10.00 per year during three
prior years of tax collection.  After negotiation between the
parties, a settlement was reached and the court approved the
terms of the settlement.  Pursuant to the settlement agreement,
the following payments were made: The total amount of the
settlement was $2,617,734 representing all privilege taxes paid
in excess of $10.00 per year during the 2006, 2007 and 2008 tax
years.  There were 2,502 individuals or businesses which were
members of the class.  Over 90% of class members have been
located and paid settlement benefits as of October 15, 2009.  248
class members have yet to be located.  A total of $2,092,280.40
of a total of $2,205,304.58 has been paid in settlement benefits
to members of the class (a 94% ratio).  Attorneys' fees of
$391,865.96 were paid to Plaintiffs' counsel which represented a
15% percent award as approved by the court for prosecuting the
case and implementing the settlement.  Plaintiffs' counsel was
also reimbursed for $2,261.19 in administrative costs.  Excess
tax payments reflected by Class members who opted out of the
class settlement totaled $5,354.00.  The Defendant City of
Charlotte was reimbursed $12,948.27 in administrative costs.  
Unclaimed settlement funds in the amount $113,024.19 are being
distributed as provided by Chapter 116B of the North Carolina
General Statutes.  The Plaintiff Class was represented by:

          Jameson P. Wells, Esq.
          WELLS DAISLEY RABON, P.A.
          1616 Cleveland Avenue
          Charlotte, NC 28203-4855
          Telephone: (704) 315-2497
          Fax: (704) 347-0684
          E-mail: jwells@wdrlawfirm.com
          http://www.wdrlawfirm.com


CITY OF HEATH: Sued, with Redflex, for Traffic Ticket Refunds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessie Balmert at The Newark Advocate reports that a
Pickerington, Ohio, attorney filed a class-action complaint
against the city of Heath and RedflexTraffic Systems, seeking
reimbursement of all citations doled out since April 6.

Mitchell Tallan filed his complaint Thursday, two days after
Heath voters approved a charter amendment banning traffic cameras
in the city.

Unlike other camera-related actions filed against Heath, Mr.
Tallan is seeking damages and full reimbursement of all "illegal
funds" obtained from speeding tickets from April 6 to Thursday,
according to the filing.

Mr. Tallan, who filed on behalf of all others who were unjustly
cited by the cameras, discussed several reasons why the cameras
violated his rights.

But the class action might not last because Mr. Tallan said
Tuesday he plans to modify the complaint to include just his
citation.

The action claims the citations violated due process and abused
police powers, among other complaints.  The filing also states
that the prosecution of the citations was inconsistent and
discriminatory, according to court records.

"Ordinances were passed primarily to generate revenue for the
city of Heath rather than to promote safety and therefore
constitute a misuse and abuse of police powers," according to the
filing.

The lawsuit stems from a speeding ticket Mr. Tallan received
Oct. 31 for an alleged violation Oct. 25 at the intersection of
Ohio 79 and Coffman Boulevard, according to the filing.


CITY OF MENASHA: Notice to Holders of Steam Utility Revenue Bonds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)), notice is
given that a class action has been filed in which claims are
asserted on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired City of Menasha, Calumet and Winnebago
Counties, Wisconsin, $12,660,000 Taxable Steam Utility Revenue
Bond Anticipation Notes, CUSIP Number 586499AA3, due September 1,
2009, from February 1, 2005, to September 1, 2009, and/or Menasha
$11,500,000 Taxable Steam Utility Revenue Bond Anticipation
Notes, CUSIP Number 586499AB1, due September 1, 2009, from
December 1, 2006 to September 1, 2009.  Purchasers or holders of
the 2005 BANs issued by Menasha are referred to herein as the
"2005 Class," and purchasers or holders of the 2006 BANs issued
by Menasha are referred to herein as the "2006 Class."  

The complaint in Lafayette Life Insurance Company, et al., v.
City of Menasha, Wisconsin, et al., Case No. 09-CV-00064 (N.D.
Ind.) (Springmann, J.), asserts claims under section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78j(b)) and Rule 10b-5
(17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5), on behalf of purchasers or holders
of the 2005 and/or 2006 BANs during their respective Class
Periods. These claims allege that Defendants intentionally or
with extreme recklessness misrepresented the truth about the
following matters: (1) the viability and terms of Steam Supply
Agreements Defendants purportedly had in place; (2) Defendants'
ability to repay the 2005 BANs and the 2006 BANs as they became
due; (3) the total cost of the steam utility project; (4)
Menasha's ability and commitment to issuing bonds or appropriate
other funds to pay the 2005 BANs and 2006 BANs; and (5)
representations regarding existing contracts, environmental
permits and approvals. As a result of these material
misrepresentations, the repayment obligations included in the
2005 BANs and 2006 BANs were never satisfied and the Plaintiffs
suffered damages therefrom.

In addition to the federal securities claims asserted, the
complaint also asserts on behalf of the holders of the 2005 and
2006 BANs the following state law claims against the Defendants:
(1) violation of various states' securities laws; (2) breach of
contract; (3) common law fraud; (4) negligent misrepresentation;
(5) unjust enrichment; (6) breach of fiduciary duty; (7) theft by
virtue of business; (8) fraudulent transfer; (9) request for
accounting of funds; (10) promissory estoppel; and (11) unlawful
taking in violation of Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all class members
and are represented by Ice Miller LLP, of Indianapolis, Indiana.
If you purchased or acquired the 2005 or 2006 BANs during their
respective Class Periods you may, not later than 60 days from the
date hereof, move the Court to serve as a lead plaintiff,
pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)). If you are a holder of the
2005 or 2006 BANs and would like more information about this
litigation or your rights as a potential class member, please
contact:

          Michael A. Wukmer, Esq.
          Jacob R. Cox, Esq.
          Michael T. McNally, Esq.
          ICE MILLER LLP
          One American Square, Suite 2900
          Indianapolis, IN  46282-0200
          Telephone: (317) 236-2439
          E-mail: michael.wukmer@icemiller.com
          http://www.icemiller.com/

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian E Casey, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          600 1st Source Bank Center
          100 N. Michigan Street
          South Bend, IN 46601-1632
          Telephone: 574-237-1285


FACEBOOK: Kershaw Cutter Investigating Social Networking Games
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Tate at Gawker.com reports that Facebook and MySpace might
finally pay the price for the big social gaming scandal: At least
one law firm is investigating whether to launch a class action
suit on behalf of duped users.

Sacramento-based Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP, is looking for
people who faced "unauthorized charges imposed on Facebook and
MySpace users who participate in social games like 'Farmville'
and 'Mafia Wars.'" The firm, which said it has launched an
investigation into such scams, specializes in class action suits,
among other areas.

Mike Arrington's TechCrunch has posted a series of articles at
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/31/scamville-the-social-gaming-ecosystem-of-hell/
on the issue of sleazy revenue models for online games, exposing
the practice of sneaking mobile data subscriptions and pricey
"learning CD" packages past players trying to earn online
"points."  Mafia Wars and Farmville creator Zynga gets a third of
its revenue from such "commercial offers," while Facebook in turn
gets 10-20 percent of its money from Zynga, according to
Arrington.

Zynga has yanked some of its ads; Facebook, in turn, has
suspended one of Zynga's smaller games. But there's evidence this
issue could have been addressed much sooner. TechCrunch found
video -- see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7YaVVpK1G4-- shot  
this past spring in which Zynga's CEO said he "did every horrible
thing in the book to, just to get revenues right away."

That sounded bad enough when it was reprinted on a tech blog;
imagine how it's going to sound in court.


HORIZON LINES: Del. Ct. Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hallman at The Am Law Litigation Daily reports that a
Delaware federal district court judge has dismissed a securities
class action against a shipping company and three of its senior
officers for failing to show that the officers had made
misleading statements about a price-fixing fraud that sent three
other executives to prison.

In October 2008, three former executives of Horizon Lines, a
large commercial shipping company, pled guilty to federal charges
that they had orchestrated an illegal price-fixing conspiracy
over rates the company charged to ship goods from Puerto Rico to
the United States.  In the week that followed, Horizon's stock
price dipped 38 percent.

The lawsuit was brought in 2008 against Horizon, the three
officers who pled guilty (and who were sentenced to six-and-a-
half years in prison), and three officers who signed off on
financial documents and who made public statements about the
performance of the company -- Charles Raymond, Mark Urbania, and
John Keenan.  The plaintiffs tried to link the three officers who
admitted to the fraud to the three financial officers who made
public statements about the company.  Plaintiffs also sought to
hold Horizon Lines liable for false and misleading statements as
a "controlling person" under the Securities Exchange Act.

In dismissing the case, federal district court judge C.J. Bartle
ruled that there wasn't sufficient evidence to link the officers
who plead guilty to the fraud to the officers who made public
statements and who signed off on company financial documents.
Further, he wrote, there was no evidence that that the defendants
knowingly made untrue statements of material fact.  Nor, he
noted, did plaintiffs try to link a misleading statement to the
three defendants.

Paul Lockwood, Esq., of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
represented Horizon. Joseph Click, Esq., of Blank Rome
represented Raymond; Kevin Brady, Esq., and Jeremy Anderson,
Esq., of Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz represented Urbania, and
William Lafferty, Esq., of Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell
represented Keenan. John Browne, Esq., Laurne McMillen, Esq., and
Sean O'Dowd, Esq., of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
represented the lead plaintiff, the Police and Fire Retirement
System of the City of Detroit.


INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Rules DRAM Class Certification Appropriate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Middlemiss at the Financial Post reports that British
Columbia Court of Appeal has overturned a lower court ruling and
certified a class action against a group of five technology
manufacturers accused of fixing prices on computer memory chips.

The court ruled in Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Infineon
Technologies AG that the B.C. Class Proceedings Act should be
"construed generously in order to achieve its objectives," which
includes behavior modification, improving access to justice and
avoiding duplicate court cases.

The lower court found that  the proposed representative plaintiff
for the class did not meet the test and had "irreconcilable
conflicts" with other class members when it came to the issues of
absorbing any overcharge on the pricing so the court refused to
certify.

The appeal court noted that a certification hearing "does not
involve an assessment of the merits of the claim; rather it
focuses on the form of the action in order to determine whether
the action can appropriately go forward as a class proceeding."

"The appellant was required to show only a credible or plausible
methodology" in its evidence, the appeal court ruled in assessing
the differences among expert witnesses that testified on issues
around the impact on pricing.

David Kent, a class-action lawyer at McMillan who represented one
of the respondents, said "the bar has been lowered" when it comes
to certifying class actions in B.C. He said while the U.S. courts
take the approach at certification that judges need to "put their
boots on" and "dig in a bit" into the evidence to assess who is
right or wrong, the B.C. appeal court is "going in the opposite
direction."

The ruling is a big win for Vancouver lawyer J.J. Camp, who
represented the appellant Pro-Sys. The lawsuit is the latest in a  
growing number of price-fixing class actions, including a recent
Ontario decision involving hydrogen peroxide.

The B.C. ruling paves the way for a similar class-action against
the memory makers in in Ontario, which has been on hold pending
the outcome of this case. An application to certify a Quebec
action was dismissed.

The responding computer companies included Infineon, Hynix
Semiconductor Inc, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Micron
Technology Inc. and Elpida Memory, Inc.. They collectively
account for more than 76% of the worldwide  production of dynamic
random access memory (DRAM), which  provides high-speed
electronic storage and retrieval of information in nearly all  
computer and telecommunication products used today.

Three of the respondents have settled class actions in the U.S.
for US$160-million. All of the respondents, with the exception of
Micron, which was granted amnesty in exchange for co-operation in
the investigation, have pleaded guilty to criminal charges in the
U.S. over conspiracy to fix prices internationally and paid fines
totaling US$731-million. A number of executives have paid fines
or served prison terms.


KIA MOTORS: Hagens Berman Investigates Defective Kia Air Bags
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro has begun an investigation into Kia
Motors Corp (000270.KS) and its occupant classification system,
or OCS, after claims that adults weighing less than 130 pounds
deactivate the air bags in the passenger seat, leaving passengers
at significant risk if there's an accident and the air bags don't
deploy.

The investigation includes all Kia models made between 2006 and
2009. Federal law requires all vehicles to be equipped with front
passenger air bags, and problems with the OCS may deprive smaller
passengers of any front air bag protection.

The OCS is part of the advanced air bag system of a vehicle.
These systems use sensors in the passenger seat to determine if
the front air bag should be enabled depending on whether the
passenger is a child or adult, and there's no way to override the
system. HBSS is investigating whether Kia's occupant
clarification system fails to correctly detect the presence of
smaller adults and deactivates the front air bag for these adult
passengers.

The law firm is also investigating claims that Kia was aware of
the problem and failed to disclose this defect to owners and new
purchasers.

If you own a Kia manufactured between 2006 and 2009, you can
contact Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro to discuss your options.
Owners can e-mail rob@hbsslaw.com or call 602-840-5900 to discuss
the investigation.

You can also join this investigation at:

     http://www.hbsslaw.com/kiaairbags

HBSS will treat all information shared as confidential.

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/  


MAIL BOXES ETC: Opt-Out Notices Sent to 3,000 Franchisees
---------------------------------------------------------
Janet Sparks at BlueMaumau.org reports that notices have been
sent out to approximately 3,000 franchisees of Mail Boxes Etc.
and The UPS Store, giving them the option to be a part of a
national class action lawsuit against the franchisor or to opt
out.  They have until December 9, 2009 to send in their election
form requesting to be excluded from the class.  Otherwise, they
will be listed as a class member.

The court certified a national class in Morgate LLC v. Mail Boxes
Etc., Inc., United Parcel Service, Inc., et al., Case No.
BC294647 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.), consisting of all
franchisees in the US, who operated a Mail Boxes Etc. store and
converted to The UPS Store through the Gold Shield Amendment on
or before March, 2003, regardless if they are still operating
their stores. It also certified a subclass ("the California Sub-
class") consisting of all franchisees who meet the above-
described criteria and whose centers are or were located in
California. Every franchisee who is a member of the California
Sub-class is also a member of the Class.

The complaint alleges three claims against defendants: negligent
misrepresentations; intentional misrepresentations; and
misrepresentations based upon disclosures required by the
California Franchise Investment Law (CFIL).  Plaintiff alleges
that the members of the class were misled by false statements and
concealment of material facts contained in five documents
provided to franchisees during an organized presentation to
franchisees by UPS and MBE, known as the "Gold Shield Program."

Gold Shield began as a test marketing program after United Parcel
Service acquired the Mail Boxes Etc. franchise system, but it
soon became the company's approved method of converting MBE
stores to UPS's new model. When the franchisor amended its
franchise agreements to reflect the changes, franchisee groups
responded with lawsuits stating they should have been issued new
franchise disclosure documents as a result of the major revisions
to the brand and model. The Platinum Shield Association filed its
lawsuit in April 2003, representing approximately 150 MBE
franchisees, claiming UPS/MBE was in violation of a California
franchise statute and common law fraud.

Other lawsuits are pending, Ms. Sparks notes.

The members of the Class in the California case are represented
by:

          Amy M. Darby, Esq.
          M. D. Scully, Esq.
          H. Scott Sirlin, Esq.
          GORDON & REES, LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071.
          Telephone: (213) 576-5000

Plaintiffs are seeking the recovery of damages from the MBE
defendants. In addition, for the alleged violations of the
California Investment Law, they are seeking the option to rescind
the Gold Shield amendment of their franchise agreements.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Settles Class Action Lawsuits for $435 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joan E. Solsman at The Wall Street Journal reports that Marsh &
McLennan Cos. agreed to pay $435 million to settle class-action
shareholder lawsuits without admitting wrongdoing.

Marsh & McLennan, one of the world's biggest insurance
brokerages, said that while it continues to deny the charges --
stemming from allegations of bid rigging and price fixing by the
company's insurance brokerage unit in insurance contracts -- the
settlement was in the best interest of the company and its
investors.

"The resolution of these matters puts the litigation arising from
the events of 2004 largely behind us and reduces the company's
ongoing legal costs," the company said.

The insurance broker agreed to pay $400 million to settle a
securities suit and $35 million to settle another suit related to
charges under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Of the
total, $230 million will be covered by insurance. The remainder
will be come from cash on hand.

The settlement is still subject to court approval in the Southern
District of New York.

Earlier this month, Marsh & McLennan swung to a third-quarter
profit on sharply lower costs, on strength in its risk and
insurance-services segment and sharp margin gains, although the
consulting business continued to be hurt by the weak economy.


NEW MOTION: Preliminary Settlement Approved for 6 Million Users
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Khorrami Pollard & Abir LLP reports that on
November 6, 2009, the Honorable Coleman Swart entered an Order
granting preliminary approval of a proposed nationwide class
action settlement in Allen, et al. v. New Motion, Inc., dba
Atrinsic, Inc., et al., Case No. BC386596 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty.), that would resolve claims of an estimated six
million cellular phone users.  The action, brought by plaintiff
Ladonna Weaver, alleges that New Motion, Inc., violated consumer
protection laws by charging consumers' cellular phone bills for
monthly subscriptions to various online services or campaigns,
without obtaining consumer authorization or consent. New Motion
denies these claims.

The proposed Settlement Class includes all persons throughout the
United States who, from March 3, 2004, through November 6, 2009,
were subscribed to one or more of the following services or
campaigns operated by New Motion, Inc.: Bid4Prizes, Altnet,
Atzmi, Gatorarcade, IMatchUp.com, Zapsters, Ringtone Channel,
Mobile Sidewalk, Ringtone.com, MMP3G.com (MX Focus and MM
Trivia), Slimlizard, or Q121Mobile.  The Settlement provides
class members who submit a claim before February 12, 2010, the
right to a refund of up to three months of subscription fees (per
subscription).

For more information on the settlement, including information of
how to make an online claim, a settlement Web site has been
created by Garden City Group, Inc., at:

     http://www.newmotionclasssettlement.com/

Inquiries may also be made to the class action law firm Khorrami
Pollard & Abir LLP of Los Angeles, California who was appointed
as class counsel on behalf of certified settlement class.


NEW ORLEANS: La. App. Ct. Okays School Worker Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Carr at The Times-Picayune reports that the Louisiana Court
of Appeal last week upheld a district court judge's decision that
a lawsuit brought by several employees of the New Orleans school
system who were fired after Hurricane Katrina can proceed as a
class action suit.

"This ruling means that 8,500 former New Orleans public school
employees . . . will be able to proceed with their claims
together (in one lawsuit) instead of having to file thousands of
individual lawsuits," the plaintiffs' lead attorney, Willie M.
Zanders, said in a prepared statement posted on a Plaintiff-
sponsored Web site at http://www.nopsejustice.com/

"We disagree with it, but it is what it is," Bill Aaron, an
attorney representing the School Board, told Ms. Carr.  He said
it will be more inefficient to figure out damages as a class
since it will ultimately have to be done on a "case-by-case
basis."

The appeal court noted that the class probably includes at least
5,000 fired employees, and could be as large as 7,500.

Civil District Court Judge Ethel Simms-Julien initially certified
the class-action suit nearly a year ago.

Mr. Zanders called the 5,000 to 7,500 estimate "conservative."  
But he added, "we're not going to be hung up on the numbers, we
just want to help everyone who is eligible."

The defendants, including the Orleans Parish School Board and the
state, can now appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court.  Otherwise,
the plaintiffs will move forward with trying to prove that the
employees were wrongfully terminated, or that the state, which
assumed control of Orleans schools after the 2005 hurricane,
interfered with the contract between the School Board and its
employees by stripping financial resources. "We believe the state
played a major part in the termination process," Mr. Zanders
said.

Mr. Aaron said he wasn't sure at this point whether the School
Board or state will choose to appeal to the Supreme Court.  But
he noted that the court "made it clear and unequivocal that they
are not saying the plaintiffs were entitled to win, just that it
would be more clear and efficient to handle it as a class
action."


PRESSURE SENSITIVE LABELS: Plaintiff Recoveries Total $46.5 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL attorney, Richard L. Creighton,
Jr., announced that six years of class action antitrust
litigation has ended with court approval of two settlements
totaling $38.25 million (USD) in what plaintiffs referred to as
the "Plant for Paper" deal among competing companies in the
international Pressure Sensitive Labelstock industry.  The latest
settlements bring the total recovered by plaintiffs to $46.5
million.

Creighton's client, Bertek Systems, Inc. of Vermont, was one of
five plaintiff class representatives in the lawsuit. Bertek
Systems is a label converter - a producer of specialty labels. It
buys labelstock, the paper product from which labels are made,
from various competing manufacturers such as California-based
Avery Dennison Corporation, Ohio-based MACtac, and Raflatac which
is based in Finland and runs its North American operations out of
North Carolina.

The class members in the price-fixing lawsuit alleged that, in
the mid-1990s, Avery and MACtac were concerned that Raflatac was
poised to make serious inroads into the North American labelstock
market. The American companies feared Raflatac because it had
successfully expanded its market share in Europe by aggressively
pricing its products - largely at Avery's expense. Rather than
try to compete with Raflatac, Avery and MACtac (together or
independently) approached the paper manufacturer UPM-Kymmene
Corporation (the Finnish parent company of Raflatac) with an
offer to purchase significant quantities of the paper needed to
manufacture labelstock from UPM, if UPM would agree to keep
Raflatac from building a labelstock manufacturing plant in North
Carolina (thus the "Plant for Paper" moniker). The defendant
companies never admitted to any wrongdoing and maintained that
their actions were legal.

The fact that Avery, MACtac, and UPM were communicating about
sensitive competition issues came to light in 2002-2003, when UPM
attempted to purchase MACtac and merge it with Raflatac. The U.S.
Department of Justice reviewed and then subsequently denied
permission for the proposed merger. The companies challenged the
government's denial of clearance to merge, but a federal judge in
Chicago, citing evidence of inappropriate communications, sided
with the Department of Justice and blocked the proposed merger.

KMK's client, Bertek Systems, filed suit against UPM, Raflatac,
Avery, and MACtac in federal court in Philadelphia. Several other
label converters filed suits in federal courts in other
jurisdictions. The cases were eventually consolidated and sent to
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
in Scranton. Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie, who presided over the six-
year long litigation, certified the case as a class action in
2007.

The class plaintiff attorneys in the case reviewed more than four
million pages of documents, and from those, singled out a
relatively few key documents they alleged proved the defendants
conspired to keep a viable competitor out of the North American
market. As part of their evidence discovery process, Creighton
and other lead counsel travelled across the U.S. and to Helsinki,
Finland, to interview and depose witnesses, review documents, and
meet with experts.

In 2007, UPM and Raflatac agreed to a settlement of $8.25 million
to avoid the substantial risks inherent in this type of
litigation; as part of the settlement, they agreed to cooperate
with the plaintiff attorneys.

Earlier this year, Avery agreed to attempt a settlement mediated
by Kenneth R. Feinberg, one of the leading mediators in the U.S.
Feinberg served as Special Master of the Federal September 11th
Victim Compensation Fund and was recently named by the Obama
administration as Special Master of Executive Compensation for
corporations that received TARP funds.

After a long and hard-fought legal battle and intensive
negotiations, final settlements were hammered out: Avery agreed
to pay $36.5 million, plus up to an additional $500,000 to offset
the administrative costs of the class action. MACtac agreed to
pay $1.25 million.

On September 17, 2009, Judge Vanaskie approved the settlements.

The Pressure Sensitive Labelstock class action antitrust case is
the 18th antitrust price-fixing case in Creighton's career in
which he acted as lead class counsel or co-counsel; combined
settlements in these cases have totaled more than $500 million.

Additional background, including a case timeline, can be found
at:

     http://www.kmklaw.com/news_pr_detail.aspx?id=207

Richard L. Creighton, Jr., Esq., is a trial attorney with Keating
Muething & Klekamp PLL.  His practice is concentrated in general
civil litigation, with particular emphasis on complex business,
antitrust, and tort litigation, including class actions. In
recent years, he has served as lead class counsel in several
class action cases, including antitrust price-fixing cases. In
the business law arena, he has successfully represented a wide
variety of clients in contract and/or fraud cases. Creighton also
is recognized for his experience in counseling clients and
serving as trial counsel in matters involving libel, invasion of
privacy, and other First Amendment issues. A licensed instrument
rated private pilot, he has successfully represented numerous
clients in aviation-related matters, including aviation crash
cases and administrative proceedings before the Federal Aviation
Administration. Prior to joining Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL,
he served as a law clerk to the late Honorable John W. Peck,
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Creighton
earned his B.A. from Xavier University, cum laude, and his J.D.
from St. Louis University School of Law, cum laude. He can be
reached at 513.579.6513 or at rcreighton@kmklaw.com.

The law firm of Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL, based in
Cincinnati, Ohio, was founded in 1954.  KMK has approximately 115
lawyers and a support staff of 150 employees.  For the past 55
years, KMK has contributed to the success of many businesses,
from Fortune 500 corporations to start-up companies.  KMK's
mission is to provide high-quality legal counsel to business
clients by meeting their identified needs and developing
appropriate solutions. Additional information is available at
http://www.kmklaw.com/


STATE FARM: Calif. Shop Owners Intent on Pursing Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Search-AutoParts.com reports that some 75 California collision
repair professionals representing about 40 body shops spent their
Thursday evening discussing the details involved in filing a
class action lawsuit against State Farm Insurance over alleged
steering. The consensus reached at the Nov. 12 gathering was that
they should move forward with all deliberate speed.

The next step is to continue gathering the evidence and
documentation needed to overcome the withering scrutiny that
comes with such an important court case.

"My intent is to sue the heck out of State Farm; I just want
their neck over the barbed wire before I clip it," says industry
activist Gene Crozat of G&C AutoBody, who organized the meeting
at a Sacramento hotel.

A number of shop owners traveled a long distance to be there.

The attendees expressed how much they are "frustrated with the
current state of affairs and frustrated with steering that just
doesn't seem to go away," reports G&C spokesman Peter Bizaca.

"They left the meeting feeling good that someone was out there
doing something positive," he notes. "They left feeling that they
are not alone and that there is hope."

"The class action sounds good," says Gary Liu, manager of Bee
Automotive Collision Center in San Francisco.  "It's something
that needs to be done.  We've been battling the insurance
industry for a long while -- it's like David and Goliath," he
points out.

"It's hard for a mom and pop shop to fight this battle," Liu
continues.  "We're going to need help, but we're going to do it."

Mr. Liu is particularly pleased that Mr. Crozat and his staff
handed out binders filled with information that repairers can use
to further pursue their case.  The packet includes "instructions
on how to get written evidence," such as forms and regulations
plus testimonials from G&C customers who have successfully taken
State Farm to small claims court.

"It was all-encompassing," says Mr. Bizaca as he recounts the
agenda.  Steering, labor rate surveys and small claims court
filings were covered along with contemplating the proposed class
action case.

"We had shops from all over Northern California," he says.  "The
tables were filled."  Although about 80 shop owners had indicated
they would attend, the final tally is still enough to drive home
the value of a concentrated effort.

"They are ready to participate, but they are aware that it will
be difficult," Mr. Bizaca explains.

Mainstream media outlets may shine the glare of publicity onto
the scenario as the Los Angeles Times and Sacramento Bee each
sent reporters to cover the event.  "We have the press on top of
this," says Mr. Bizaca.

A second meeting is to be scheduled in January, set in Orange
County to reach repairers throughout the Los Angeles basin and
stretching down to the San Diego border region.

The Sacramento session stressed that class action lawsuits can be
a tough road to navigate, which is why thorough documentation
plays such a large role.  Two lawyers, Mark Venardi, Esq., and
Martin Zurada, Esq., were on hand to present some of the
particulars.

A united front is imperative, according to Mr. Venardi, who cites
a string of unsuccessful class action filings over the years.  
The burden of proof is strong.

Nonetheless, "the legal system is the last potential remedy."

Commenting on the trials and tribulations inherent in the
longtime shops vs. carriers conflicts within the Golden State
marketplace, Zenardi observes that "you can't count on the
legislature (and) you can't count on the Department of Insurance
-- so what can you do?  You can count on yourselves and you can
hire a lawyer."

California insurance industry representatives, including State
Farm executives, have consistently denied that steering takes
place, insisting that they strictly adhere to all existing
regulations.


* New U.K. Legislation Will Allow Consumer Classes to Sue Banks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Treanor at The Guardian reports that disgruntled bank
customers will be able to band together for the first time to
contest unfair terms and overcharging under new rules to be
introduced by the U.K. government.

Wednesday's Queen's speech, Mr. Treanor reports, will announce
legislation that will allow customers to pursue "class action"
lawsuits against finance companies.  While the practice is
commonplace in the U.S., it is almost impossible for customers in
Britain to tackle financial services firms for mis-selling their
products such as pensions and endownments.

The Treasury also intends to hand new powers to the City
regulator to allow it to force banks and other financial services
firms to compensate customers when large-scale mistakes are
discovered.  The Financial Services Authority will be given
powers of mandatory redress.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

BOEING CO: Dreamliner Optimism Leads to Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Shwiff, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that
Boeing Co. faces a possible class-action lawsuit over its long-
delayed 787 Dreamliner.

The suit, filed on behalf of an institutional investor in federal
court in Illinois, accuses Boeing executives and directors of
making false and misleading statements between May 4 and June 22
about results of tests on the plane and the company's ability to
meet its production schedule.

In June, the company postponed the first flight, then scheduled
for June 30, because of a need to reinforce an area in the side-
body section, according to the suit. Boeing's stock fell 6.5% on
June 23 and another 6% the next day, the complaint said.

The Dreamliner is now more than two years behind schedule, and
Boeing last quarter took a $2.5 billion charge related to
development costs associated with the program. The delays have
cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars in concessions
and penalties to its customers.

The Wall Street Journal, citing internal Boeing documents,
reported Thursday the company had found another issue in the test
plane's composite materials.

A Boeing spokesman told Ms. Shwiff Friday that the company hadn't
seen the lawsuit and declined to comment on it.


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Dyer & Berens Files Complaint in E.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action lawsuit last week in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 09-cv-5262, on behalf of all
purchasers of the securities of Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. (AMEX:
HEB) between February 18, 2009, and October 30, 2009, for
violations of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as a 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:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 861-1764
          E-mail: jeff@dyerberens.com

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.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
misled investors regarding the status of Hemispherx's New Drug
Application for Ampligen with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.  Specifically, defendants failed to disclose and
misrepresented the fact that the FDA had requested several
reports from the Company before the NDA could even be considered,
thus delaying the possible approval of Ampligen by several months
at a minimum. On November 2, 2009, when the Company belatedly
disclosed this information, the per share price of Hemispherx's
common stock dropped from $1.45 on the previous day to $1.13, a
drop of more than 20%. The next day, one commenter characterized
the November 2nd Company "update" as essentially an admission
"that its prior public statements were false and misleading."

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Hemispherx
investors.

The plaintiff is represented by Dyer & Berens LLP, which has
expertise in prosecuting investor class actions involving
financial fraud. The firm's extensive experience in securities
litigation, particularly in cases brought under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act, has contributed to the recovery
of hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved investors. For
more information about the firm, please go to
http://www.DyerBerens.com/


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Holzer Holzer Files Complaint in E.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of Hemispherx Biopharma,
Inc. (AMEX: HEB) who purchased shares between February 18, 2009,
and October 30, 2009, inclusive.  The lawsuit alleges that
Hemispherx misrepresented the status of its experimental drug
Ampligen. Specifically, the complaint alleges that, among other
things, the Company failed to disclose that requests for
information from the Food and Drug Administration would delay
possible FDA approval of Ampligen by at least several months.

If you purchased shares of Hemispherx common stock during the
Class Period, you have the legal right to petition the Court to
be appointed a "lead plaintiff."  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation.  Any such request must satisfy
certain criteria and be made no later than January 11, 2010.  Any
member of the purported 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.

If you are a Hemispherx investor and would like to discuss a
potential lead plaintiff appointment, or your rights and
interests with respect to the lawsuit, you may contact Michael I.
Fistel, Jr., Esq., or Marshall P. Dees, Esq. via email at
mfistel@holzerlaw.com, or mdees@holzerlaw.com, or via toll-free
telephone at (888) 508-6832.

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com/-- is an  
Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation.  


STEC INC: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Complaint in C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP commenced a Class Action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Case No. 09-cv-01315) on behalf of a class of all
persons who purchased or acquired securities of STEC, Inc.
(NASDAQ: STEC) between June 16, 2009 and November 3, 2009
inclusive.  STEC provides technology solutions and manufactures
high performance memory and storage products used in high
performance computing.

If you would like to discuss this action please contact Nancy
Kaboolian at nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of false and misleading
statements during the Class Period thereby artificially inflating
the price of STEC securities. More specifically, the Complaint
alleges that Defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose (i)
that STEC over sold its largest customer more inventory than it
required; (ii) the Company overstated the demand for certain
products; (iii) that STEC's subsequent revenue and financial
results for the following year would be negatively impacted; and
(iv) that, as a result, Defendants' statements during the Class
Period lacked a reasonable basis. The fraudulent statements made
by Defendants during the Class Period artificially inflated
STEC's stock price, which enabled Defendants Manouch Moshayedi
and Mark Moshayedi to sell 9 million of their personal shares for
proceeds of approximately $300 million in a secondary public
offering held on August 5, 2009.

On November 3, 2009, STEC announced that one of its largest
customers, which accounted for 90% of STEC's ZeusIOPS SSD
business and which had placed a $120 million order for the
second half of 2009, would carry 2009 inventory into 2010,
placing STEC's 2010 first quarter results at risk. On this news,
shares of STEC fell $9.01 per share, more than 38%, to close on
November 4, 2009, at $14.14 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired STEC securities during the Class
Period. If you purchased or otherwise acquired STEC securities
during the Class Period and lost money on the transaction or
still hold the securities, you may wish to join in the action to
serve as lead plaintiff. If you are a member of the class, you
may, no later than January 5, 2010, request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.

A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be
appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class
member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that the class member will adequately represent the class.
Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiffs."

The attorneys at Abbey Spanier have extensive experience in
securities class action cases, and have played lead roles in
major cases resulting in the recovery of hundreds of billions of
dollars to investors. If you would like to discuss this action or
if you have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights
as a potential class member or lead plaintiff, you may contact:

          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq.
          Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP
          212 East 39th St.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-889-3700
          E-mail: nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com


* PwC Sees Decrease in Securities Class-Action Suits
----------------------------------------------------
WebCPA.com reports that the number of federal securities class-
action lawsuits filed in the first three quarters of 2009 has
fallen 25 percent compared to the same period in 2008, according
to a new report from PricewaterhouseCoopers.

PwC identified 113 cases filed through Sept. 30, 2009, an average
of 38 per quarter. If a similar trend continues, the total number
of cases for 2009 may only reach the number of cases filed
through the first three quarters of 2008.

However, while the number of financial-crisis-related cases filed
has decreased from those filed in 2008, the percentage of these
cases compared to the total number of cases filed remains
consistent with 2008, with 44 percent in 2009 and 47 percent in
2008. The report shows an increase of financial-crisis-related
filings involving Ponzi schemes, representing approximately 28
percent of such filings.  

The financial services industry experienced the greatest number
of class-action suits, with 52 cases filed, followed by the high-
technology and pharmaceutical industries, with a combined total
of 29 cases filed. During the third quarter, there was a sharp
increase in the number of cases filed in the health care
industry. Six cases were filed during the first half of the year,
and 13 cases were filed in the third quarter.

                            *********

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  * * *