CAR_Public/091124.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 24, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 232
  
                            Headlines

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Bateman" Case Remains Stayed Pending Appeal
BANK OF AMERICA: Ruling Opens Treasure Trove of Merrill Documents
BAYER HEALTHCARE: "Walker" Yaz Lawsuit Filed in N.J. Super. Ct.
CENTERLINE HOLDING: Plaintiff's Appeal Hearing Set for Jan. 25
CENTERLINE HOLDING: Still Awaiting Court Ruling on "Off" Suit

CENTERLINE HOLDING: Still No Decision on Demand Letter
CENTURY 21: Recalls 17,000 Hooded Sweatshirts & Jackets
CITY OF CHARLOTTE: Report On Contractor Privilege Tax Settlement
COST PLUS: Recalls 300 Sets of Stainless Steel Cookware
CRM HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss WRWCTNY Suit Remains Pending

CRM HOLDINGS: Trade Trust Files Amended Complaint in New York
CRM HOLDINGS: Wants Real Estate Trust's N.Y. Suit Dismissed
CRM HOLDINGS: Wants Court to Dismiss Transportation Trust's Suit
FORD MOTOR: Suit Claims Minivan Torque Converters Are Defective
GORILLA INC: Recalls 90 EXO-Tech Safety Harnesses

GRAND WORLD: Recalls 641,000 "Bobby Chupete" Pacifiers
L G SOURCING: Recalls 664,700 Gas Grills Sold at Lowe's Stores
M-QUBE INC: Inks Global Settlement with KamberEdelson Clients
OLIN CORP: Feb. 18 Hearing Set to Review $1.3 Mil. Settlement
SALOMON USA: Recalls 10,000 Alpine Ski Bindings

TD BANK: Motion to Dismiss Gift Card Domancy Fee Suit is Denied
TOYOTA MOTOR: Two RAV4 SUV Lawsuits Filed in California Courts
WAL-MART STORES: Accused in Va. Lawsuit of Selling Used Goods
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Court Doesn't Let JPMorgan Off the HELOC Hook
WELLS FARGO: Buying Back $1.4 Billion of Auction Rate Securities

YOUBET.COM: Shareholders Sue in Calif. To Get More from Churchill
ZYNGA GAME: Sued, with Facebook, for Improper Credit Card Charges

                            *********

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Bateman" Case Remains Stayed Pending Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case No. 07-cv-00052 (C.D.
Calif.) (Feess, J.), which names AMC Entertainment, Inc., as a
defendant, remains stayed pending the plaintiff's appeal on the
denial of his renewed motion for class certification.

The suit was filed in January 2007, before the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, alleging
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act.

FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates nor more
than the last five numbers of a credit or debit card may be
printed on electronic receipts given to customers.  It imposes
significant penalties upon violators where the violation is
deemed to have been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to
actual losses incurred by the cardholder.

The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class
action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for class certification without prejudice pending the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in an
appeal from a denial of certification in a similar FACTA case.

On June 3, 2008, the President of the United States of America
signed the FACTA reform bill.  The bill specifies that if a
company printed the expiration date on credit card receipts, but
otherwise complied with FACTA, it did not willfully violate the
law.  The legislation does not specifically address the
situation where more than five digits of the credit card are
printed on a receipt.

The Ninth Circuit appeal was subsequently dismissed after the
parties reached a settlement.

On Oct. 24, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiff's renewed
motion for class certification.  Plaintiff has appealed this
decision.

The case is stayed pending this appeal.

NO further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 12, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Oct. 1, 2009.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
         Ira Spiro, Esq.
         Spiro Moss Barness
         11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Phone: 310-235-2468
         E-mail: greg@spirmoss.com
                 ira@spiromoss.com

Representing the defendants is:

          David E. Novitskim, Esq.
          Thelen Reid Brown Raymans and Steiner
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048
          Phone: 213-576-8097
          Fax: 213-576-8080


BANK OF AMERICA: Ruling Opens Treasure Trove of Merrill Documents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Let's hope the plaintiffs lawyers in the Bank of America
securities class action suit have some big wheelbarrows, or at
least terabytes of computer hard drive space," Susan Beck at The
American Lawyer quips, as she reports that in a huge win last
week for shareholders, Manhattan federal district court Judge
Denny Chin took the unusual step of lifting the statutory
discovery stay in the securities fraud case.  His order will give
the plaintiffs access to the mountains of documents that BofA and
related defendants have already turned over to Congress, the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the New York attorney general
and other government entities scrutinizing BofA's acquisition of
Merrill Lynch.  In addition, lawyers for the shareholders will be
able to use transcripts of depositions taken by other
investigators.

They will also probably get access to communications between BofA
and its lawyers that the bank turned over to various government
agencies after it waived the attorney-client privilege in
October.  Judge Chin's ruling does not carve out an exception for
privileged materials.  The protective order issued by Manhattan
federal district court Judge Jed Rakoff in the SEC's case against
Bank of America states that BofA is not deemed to be waiving its
privilege "regarding other information that may be of interest in
related private lawsuits."  That language can be construed to
mean that BofA can still claim privilege over materials
government investigators didn't ask for -- not necessarily that
plaintiffs in private lawsuits can't have access to the documents
the bank did turn over.

The class action plaintiffs asked Judge Chin to lift the
discovery stay automatically imposed by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act in an Oct. 6 letter.  The three-page letter
-- signed by co-lead counsel from Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer;
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann; and Barroway Topaz Kessler
Meltzer & Check -- argues that the discovery stay, which
typically remains in place until after motions to dismiss have
been decided -- placed the class at a disadvantage compared to
others investigating BofA's merger with Merrill.

Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, representing BofA, immediately
objected to lifting the stay in an Oct. 8 letter. A furious
exchange of letters ensued: from the plaintiffs on Oct. 14 and
Nov. 13; and from Wachtell on Oct. 15, Nov. 13 and Nov. 16.

Ms. Beck says the securities class action plaintiffs were itching
to get the stay lifted in part because of a competing derivative
case against BofA in Delaware Chancery Court, in which the
plaintiffs have already survived a motion to dismiss and have
begun discovery. The federal plaintiffs argued to Chin that
because such defendants as former BofA CEO Kenneth Lewis have
finite resources, the class's discovery should not be delayed.
They reiterated that position at oral arguments before Judge Chin
on Oct. 16. Wachtell maintained there was no compelling reason to
lift the stay. (Here's the transcript of oral arguments.)

As Zach Lowe at The Am Law Daily noted earlier this month, the
Delaware plaintiffs have received permission to subpoena
documents from BofA's lawyers at Wachtell and Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton.  They have demanded "all documents concerning
the merger."

In his discovery stay ruling in the federal securities case,
Judge Chin concluded that the BofA securities fraud plaintiffs
would be unduly prejudiced if they didn't have access to
documents that have already been turned over.  Without them, he
wrote, the shareholders "will be less able to make informed
decisions about litigation strategy."  He added that this
discovery won't overly burden the defendants since they've
already given the documents to others.

Ohio Attorney General Mark Cordray, the lead plaintiff in the
shareholder class action, offered this statement: "[This] ruling
by Judge Chin in the Bank of America litigation will allow our
case to proceed more rapidly."

Bank of America offered Ms. Beck this comment via e-mail: "It's a
step in the court process.  We continue to believe that we
disclosed all that we were required to disclose."

There was one final bit of interest in Judge Chin's ruling, Ms
Beck says: the list of defense counsel at the end of the
document, many of whom haven't yet entered appearances on the
court docket:

BofA and its outside directors in the securities class action,
ERISA class action and federal derivative suit are represented
by:

          Peter C. Hein, Esq.
          Eric M. Roth, Esq.
          Jonathan Goldin, Esq.
          Christopher S. Szczerban, Esq.
          Keola R. Whittaker, Esq.
          WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & HATZ
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019-6150

BofA inside directors and officers are represented by:

          Lawrence Portnoy, Esq.
          Charles S. Duggan, Esq.
          Douglas K. Yatter, Esq
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017

Merrill Lynch is represented by:

          Adam S. Hakki, Esq.
          Terence P. Gilroy, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022

Merrill's outside directors are represented by:

          Robert D. Joffe, Esq.
          Richard W. Clary, Esq.
          Julie A. North, Esq.
          Yonatan Even, Esq.
          Patrick A. Meagher, Esq.
          CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
          825 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10019

Former Merrill CEO John Thain is represented by:

          Andrew J. Levander, Esq.
          David S. Hoffner, Esq.
          Jennie B. Krasner, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          1095 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036

The Financial Advisors involved in the Merrill-BofA merger are
represented by:

          Gary W. Kubek, Esq.
          Robert H. Chandler, Esq.
          Corey Whiting, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022

               - and -  

          Richard C. Pepperman, II, Esq.
          Tracy R. High, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004

Deloitte is represented by:

          Brad S. Karp, Esq.
          Charles E. Davidow, Esq.
          Hallie Goldblatt, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019


BAYER HEALTHCARE: "Walker" Yaz Lawsuit Filed in N.J. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy R. Fleishman of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announced that Mae Walker
filed a personal injury lawsuit last week against Bayer
Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for severe and lasting injuries
caused by Bayer's birth control drug Yaz.  Walker's complaint
charges that Yaz is a dangerous prescription drug sold without
adequate warnings about the risk of serious injuries.

Walker, age 30, of Belpre, Ohio, works 40 hours a week at
McDonald's and is the mother of three young children.  
Approximately one year after she started taking Yaz, Walker was
diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis ("DVT"), more commonly known
as a blood clot, in her left leg.  If left untreated, blood clots
in the leg can break off and result in life-threatening
conditions.  Walker was hospitalized for three days, where she
received anti-coagulation medication to reduce the swelling in
her leg and treat the blood clot.  

"Yaz has had a devastating impact on my health and family,"
Walker stated.  "My work requires me to stand on my feet all day.  
I still experience leg swelling and cannot lift heavy items.  I
have to be extremely careful not to ever cut myself due to the
blood-thinning medication I am taking, which I have been told I
must likely take the rest of my life."

The complaint charges that Walker would never have developed DVT,
been hospitalized, or forced to undergo numerous medical tests
and procedures, had Bayer properly warned patients of the dangers
of using Yaz.

"The FDA's adverse event database for Yaz and Yasmin reveal a
very high number of serious adverse events associated with these
drugs, including strokes, heart attacks, blood clot formation,
gallbladder and kidney disease, and sometimes death," commented
attorney Fleishman.  "Bayer failed to warn doctors and consumers
that Yaz and Yasmin are actually more dangerous than previous
generations of oral contraception pills."

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
where Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is located.  

Legal Resources for Patients Injured By Yaz and Yasmin Birth
Control Drugs

The law in most states provides several personal injury claims
for persons who have been seriously injured by a medical device
or prescription drug with dangerous, undisclosed side effects.  

If you or a family member have suffered a serious injury or a
loved one died after being prescribed Yasmin or Yaz, please visit
http://www.personalinjurylawyeramerica.com/medical/yasmin-yaz.htm
to learn more about your legal rights and submit a complaint.  
Personal injury lawyers at Lieff Cabraser will promptly review
each case submitted without charge or obligation.


CENTERLINE HOLDING: Plaintiff's Appeal Hearing Set for Jan. 25
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the plaintiff's appeal to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York's decision dismissing the
the case against Centerline Holding Co., has been set for Jan.
25, 2010, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Jan. 18, 2008, the first of the federal securities putative
class actions was filed against the company and certain of its
officers and trustees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Thereafter, five other, essentially duplicative putative class
actions were also filed in the same court.

The complaint in each case asserted that the company and other
defendants allegedly violated federal securities law by failing
to disclose in a timely fashion the company's December 2007
transaction with Freddie Mac.

On May 5, 2008, the Court designated Centerline Investor Group,
which is made up of several shareholders, as lead plaintiff for
these cases.

Pursuant to the Court's stipulation and order dated March 3,
2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July
7, 2008 in this action, In re Centerline Holding Company
Securities Litigation, No. 08 CV 00505.

The consolidated complaint also alleges violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the company's announcement of
the Freddie Mac transaction, changes to the company's business
model, and the reduction in dividend guidance policy, and seeks
an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other relief on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock
of Centerline Holding Company during the period March 12, 2007
through Dec. 28, 2007.

The defendants in this action filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on Oct. 27, 2008 and the motion was
granted by U.S District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin on Jan. 12,
2009.

Judge Scheindlin granted the plaintiff leave to replead, and the
plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on March 13,
2009.

On April 30, 2009, the Defendants in this case filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint.

The lead Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendants' motion to
dismiss on June 12, 2009 and the Defendants filed their reply to
the opposition motion filed by the Plaintiffs on June 30, 2009.

On Aug. 4, 2009 the Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted and
the case was dismissed without leave for the plaintiff to
replead.

On Sept. 2, 2009, plaintiff filed an appeal of the District
Court's decision with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
Appeals Court has indicated in a scheduling order that the appeal
will be heard no earlier than Jan. 25, 2010.

Centerline Holding Company -- http://www.centerline.com/--  
provides real estate financial and asset management services,
including institutional debt and equity fund management, mortgage
banking, and primary and special loan servicing.  As of Dec. 31,
2008, it had over $14 billion of assets under management. It has
four business groups: Affordable Housing, Commercial Real Estate,
Portfolio Management and Credit Risk Products.  Its Corporate
group, consisting of Finance and Accounting, Legal, Corporate
Communications, Operations and Risk Management departments,
supports these business groups.  The Affordable Housing and
Commercial Real Estate groups raise capital through a series of
funds to deploy into an array of real estate debt and equity
investments.  The Credit Risk Products group provides credit
support to affordable housing debt and equity products for its
Affordable Housing group and third-parties.  The Portfolio
Management group provides primary and special loan servicing for
commercial real estate.


CENTERLINE HOLDING: Still Awaiting Court Ruling on "Off" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Centerline Holding Co. still awaits the decision of the Delaware
Court of Chancery on the settlement in a putative class and
derivative action lawsuit.

On Jan. 15, 2008, the first of the state law cases, a putative
class and derivative action, entitled Off v. Ross, CA No. 3468-
VCP, was filed against the company, its Board of Trustees and
TRCLP in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The lawsuit concerns
the company's sale of a new issue of convertible preferred stock
to an affiliate of The Related Companies LP.

The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
the Trustees and seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages from them as well as injunctive relief against all
defendants.

Thereafter, seven other derivative lawsuits asserting the same or
similar claims were filed in state and federal courts in New York
and in the Delaware Chancery Court.

Four of these later-filed actions also allege that the trustees
breached their fiduciary duties to us by allegedly violating the
federal securities laws.

The company is named solely as a nominal defendant in all eight
derivative actions and no monetary relief is sought against the
company in any of those cases.

The seven derivative actions filed subsequent to the Off case
are:

     -- On Jan. 18, 2008, Kramer v. Ross, et al., Index.
        No. 100861-08, was filed against the company and its
        board of trustees, in New York County Supreme Court;

     -- On Jan. 25, 2008, Carfagno v. Schnitzer, et al.,
        No. 08 CV 00912, was filed against the company and its
        board of trustees in the U.S. District Court for the
        Southern District of New York;

     -- On Jan. 30, 2008, Ciszerk v. Ross, et al., CA No. 3511,
        was filed against the company, its board of trustees and
        The Related Companies, L.P. in the Delaware Court of
        Chancery;


     -- On Feb. 22, 2008, Kanter v. Ross, et al., 08 Civ. 01827,
        was filed against the company, its board of trustees and
        The Related Companies, L.P. in the U.S. District Court
        for the Southern District of New York;

     -- On Feb. 27, 2008, Broy v. Centerline Holding Company
        et al., No. 08 CV 01971, was filed against the company
        and certain of its officers and trustees in the U.S.
        District Court for the Southern District of New York;

     -- On April 10, 2008, Kastner v. Schnitzer et al, Index
        No. 601043-08, was filed against the company and its
        board of trustees, in New York Supreme Court; and

     -- On April 10, 2008, Kostecka v. Schnitzer et al, Index
        No. 601044-08, was filed against the company and its
        board of trustees, in New York Supreme Court.

On April 28, 2008, a consolidated amended verified complaint
alleging breaches of fiduciary duties of loyalty, candor, due
care, fair dealing, waste of corporate assets and unjust
enrichment, was filed against the company and its board of
trustees in Carfagno v. Schnitzer et al., 08 CV 912 (SAS) and
Broy v. Blau, 08 CV 1971 (SAS), pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The action is styled both as a derivative suit and as a class
action on behalf of all holders of Centerline securities who
qualified to purchase the company's 11.0% Preferred Shares
pursuant to the rights offering but who did not do so.

In late March 2009, the plaintiffs and defendants reached a basis
of settlement which would require a reduction in the rate payable
on the 11.0% Convertible Preferred Shares held by TRCLP and its
affiliates to 9.5% and an increase in the conversion price from
$10.75 to $12.35.

A Stipulation of Settlement was filed with the U.S. District
Court (SDNY) on April 8, 2009 and a fairness hearing for approval
of the settlement was held May 18, 2009.

At that time the District Court entered a Final Judgment
approving the Settlement, which will become effective once the
Delaware Court of Chancery dismisses the Off and Ciszerk matters
with prejudice.

A settlement with the plaintiff in the Off case based on the
rights offering was negotiated, but on Nov. 26, 2008, the
Delaware Court of Chancery rejected the settlement and stayed any
further proceedings in the action, pending resolution of the
Carfagno case.

As a result, several of the other derivative lawsuits that had
been voluntarily stayed by the plaintiffs, including the Kramer,
Ciszerk and Kanter actions are now subject to various
stipulations deferring further activity in those actions until a
final decision on the Stipulation of Settlement in Carfagno or,
in the case of Kastner and Kostecka, pending further activity in
the consolidated securities class action.

The Carfagno Stipulation of Settlement is contingent upon the
dismissal with prejudice of the overlapping Off and Ciszerk
actions pending before the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On May 28, 2009 the defendants filed a motion for dismissal of
the Off and Ciszerk matters in the Delaware Court of Chancery
based upon the approved Stipulation of Settlement in Carfagno and
the principle of res judicata.  The defendants are awaiting the
decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery.  Counsel for the
plaintiff Off has also filed a motion for allowance of fees.  The
defendants opposed this motion and are also awaiting a decision
of the Delaware Court of Chancery on this issue.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 12, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Centerline Holding Company -- http://www.centerline.com/--  
provides real estate financial and asset management services,
including institutional debt and equity fund management, mortgage
banking, and primary and special loan servicing.  As of Dec. 31,
2008, it had over $14 billion of assets under management. It has
four business groups: Affordable Housing, Commercial Real Estate,
Portfolio Management and Credit Risk Products.  Its Corporate
group, consisting of Finance and Accounting, Legal, Corporate
Communications, Operations and Risk Management departments,
supports these business groups.  The Affordable Housing and
Commercial Real Estate groups raise capital through a series of
funds to deploy into an array of real estate debt and equity
investments.  The Credit Risk Products group provides credit
support to affordable housing debt and equity products for its
Affordable Housing group and third-parties.  The Portfolio
Management group provides primary and special loan servicing for
commercial real estate.


CENTERLINE HOLDING: Still No Decision on Demand Letter
------------------------------------------------------
Outside members of Centerline Holding Co.'s Board of Trustees
have received a letter from one of its purported shareholders
demanding that they investigate potential claims against the
companies officers and others arising out of the allegations
asserted in the federal securities litigation.

The independent Trustees determined, at their meeting on March
11, 2009, to defer further consideration of the letter until
after the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York had decided the motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated
Complaint Carfagno v. Schnitzer et al., 08 CV 912 (SAS) and Broy
v. Blau, 08 CV 1971 (SAS).

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 12, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Centerline Holding Company -- http://www.centerline.com/--  
provides real estate financial and asset management services,
including institutional debt and equity fund management, mortgage
banking, and primary and special loan servicing.  As of Dec. 31,
2008, it had over $14 billion of assets under management. It has
four business groups: Affordable Housing, Commercial Real Estate,
Portfolio Management and Credit Risk Products.  Its Corporate
group, consisting of Finance and Accounting, Legal, Corporate
Communications, Operations and Risk Management departments,
supports these business groups.  The Affordable Housing and
Commercial Real Estate groups raise capital through a series of
funds to deploy into an array of real estate debt and equity
investments.  The Credit Risk Products group provides credit
support to affordable housing debt and equity products for its
Affordable Housing group and third-parties.  The Portfolio
Management group provides primary and special loan servicing for
commercial real estate.


CENTURY 21: Recalls 17,000 Hooded Sweatshirts & Jackets
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Century 21 Promotions, of Seattle, Wash., announced a voluntary
recall of about 17,000 Youth Hooded Sweatshirts and Jackets.  
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The sweatshirts have a drawstring through the hood which can pose
a strangulation hazard to children.  In February 1996, CPSC
issued guidelines -- see http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/208.pdf  
-- to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled
on the neck and waist drawstrings in upper garments, such as
jackets or sweatshirts.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.  

This recall involves children's sweatshirts and jackets sold in
sizes XS - XXL in colors: navy blue, black, brown, pink, red,
white, green, grey, blue, yellow, and orange.  The recalled
garments contain the following embroidered logos: "Montauk,"
"Avalon," "Stone Harbor," "Cape May," "Sea Isle," "Ocean City,"
"Alaska," "Nantucket," "Maine," "Long Beach Island,"
"Lavallette," "Seaside Park," "Newport," "Monterey," "Carmel,"
"Skaneateles," "1000 Islands," "Block Island" and "Seattle."  
A picture of the recalled product is available at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10041.html

The recalled garments were manufactured in China and sold at
Montauk Clothing, Riptide East, Shirt Shops of Cape May, Summer
Sweats, Rip Current Sportswear, B&B Dept. Stores, Trapper Jack's,
Annie & The Tees, Emporium, Inc., The Trading Co., Mackerel
Jack's, Carmel Classics, Rolands, The Ship Gift Shop, Star Dept.
Store, Seattle Shirt and Simply Seattle from September 2005
through September 2009 for between $25 and $35. Most stores are
located in New England with two stores each in Seattle,
Washington and Alaska.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard, or return the garment to the
place of purchase for a full refund.  For additional information,
contact Century 21 Promotions at (800) 935-2100 between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday.


CITY OF CHARLOTTE: Report On Contractor Privilege Tax Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vision Ventures Construction Services, Inc. v. City of Charlotte,
et al., (09-CVS-3551), was filed in Mecklenburg County Superior
Court.  The 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 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 fifteen 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., of
Charlotte, North Carolina.

This summary was published in The Charlotte Observer by the
attorney representing the Defendant pursuant to an order of the
North Carolina Superior Court dated November 4, 2009.


COST PLUS: Recalls 300 Sets of Stainless Steel Cookware
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cost Plus Inc., of Oakland, Calif., announced a voluntary recall
of about 300 sets of stainless steel cookware manufactured by
Kraftwares, of Mahalaxmi, Mumbai in India.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The handles on the cookware can break, posing a burn hazard to
consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.  

This recall involves three stainless steel cookware sets:

             Description               SKU Number
      Four-piece multi cooker set        422698
      Three-piece steamer set            422699
      1.5 quart egg poacher              422700

The SKU numbers can be found on the sales receipt.

The recalled cookware was sold at Cost Plus World Market stores
nationwide in August 2009.  The 4-piece multi cooker was sold for
$30, the 3-piece steamer set for $15 and the 1.5QT egg poacher
for $15.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10044.html


Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cookware and
return it to any Cost Plus or World Market store for a full
refund.  For additional information, contact Cost Plus toll free
at (877) 967-5362 between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., ET, anytime,
or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.worldmarket.com/


CRM HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss WRWCTNY Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
CRM Holdings, Ltd.'s motion to dismiss a suit by filed by former
members of the Wholesale Retail Workers' Compensation Trust of
New York remains pending in the  New York Supreme Court, Erie
County, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Nov. 24, 2008, FS Kids, LLC, Mask Foods, Inc., Valu Home
Centers, Inc., KBLM Foods, Inc., KDJB Foods, Inc., Gaige & Son
Grocery, Inc., TJ's Market, Inc., BB&T Supermarkets Inc., BNR-
Larson, LLC, and Gift Express of New York, Inc., all of which
were former members of Wholesale Retail Workers' Compensation
Trust of New York (WRWCTNY), on their own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, sued CRM in New York Supreme
Court, Erie County.

On Aug. 26, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
seeking class action certification and alleging that CRM:

     (1) breached its contract with WRWCTNY;

     (2) breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed
         to WRWCTNY;

     (3) breached its fiduciary duties owed to WRWCTNY;

     (4) was negligent in administering WRWCTNY;

     (5) engaged in deceptive business practices;

     (6) was unjustly enriched; and

     (7) should indemnify the plaintiffs for any assessments
         that they may incur.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages arising from the plaintiffs'
joint and several liability for the deficit of WRWCTNY which, as
of Sept. 30, 2007, was estimated at $19 million, and from any
unpaid claims of the plaintiffs' injured employees in an amount
presently undetermined.

On Sept. 14, 2009, CRM filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
amended complaint.  

CRM Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.crmholdingsltd.com/ -- is a  
provider of workers' compensation insurance products.  The
company's main business activities include underwriting primary
workers' compensation policies, underwriting workers'
compensation reinsurance and excess insurance policies, and
providing fee-based management and other services to self-insured
entities.  Primary workers' compensation insurance is provided to
employers in California, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York and other states.  The company reinsures some of the
primary business it underwrites and provides excess workers'
compensation coverage for self-insured organizations.  Finally,
fee-based management services are provided to self-insured groups
in California.  The company reports its business in four
segments: primary insurance, reinsurance, fee-based management
services, and corporate and other.  On Sept. 8, 2008, the company
ceased the operations of CRM and Eimar.


CRM HOLDINGS: Trade Trust Files Amended Complaint in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Trade Industry Trust Workers' Compensation Trust for
Manufacturers filed, on Nov. 10, 2009, an amended complaint
against CRM Holdings, Ltd. in the  New York Supreme Court, Erie
County, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On March 6, 2009, Armstrong Brands, Inc., Metal Cladding, Inc.,
TREK, Inc., Petri Baking Products, Inc., Time Cap Laboratories,
Inc., Custom Coatings, Inc., GPM Associates, LLC, d/b/a Forbes
Products, PJR Industries, Inc., d/b/a Southside Precast Products,
Lakeshore Metals, Inc. Duro-Shed, Inc., Tooling Enterprises, Inc.
Northeast Concrete Products, Inc., d/b/a Concrete Building Supply
and Superior Steel Studs, Inc., all of which were former members
of Trade Industry Trust Workers' Compensation Trust for
Manufacturers (the "Trade Trust"), on their own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, sued CRM in New York
State Supreme Court, Erie County.

The lawsuit seeks class action certification and alleges that
CRM:

     (1) breached its contract with the Trade Trust;

     (2) breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed
         to the Trade Trust;

     (3) breached its fiduciary duties owed to Trade Trust;

     (4) was negligent in administering the Trade Trust;

     (5) engaged in deceptive business practices;

     (6) was unjustly enriched; and

     (7) should indemnify the plaintiffs for any assessments
         that they may incur.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages:

     a) arising from the plaintiffs' joint and several liability   
        for the deficit of the Trade Trust which, as of
        Dec. 31, 2006, was estimated at $4.9 million,

    (b) from any unpaid claims of the plaintiffs' injured
        employees in an amount presently undetermined,

    (c) from potentially being liable for the costs of
        liquidation charged or to be charged by the WCB, and

    (d) from fees paid by the plaintiffs and the Trade Trust to
        CRM pursuant the service agreement between CRM and the
        Trade Trust.

On Aug. 17, 2009, CRM filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
complaint.  The motion is currently pending before the court.

On Nov. 10, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
alleging substantially the same claims and damages as contained
in their original complaint.

CRM Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.crmholdingsltd.com/ -- is a  
provider of workers' compensation insurance products.  The
company's main business activities include underwriting primary
workers' compensation policies, underwriting workers'
compensation reinsurance and excess insurance policies, and
providing fee-based management and other services to self-insured
entities.  Primary workers' compensation insurance is provided to
employers in California, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York and other states.  The company reinsures some of the
primary business it underwrites and provides excess workers'
compensation coverage for self-insured organizations.  Finally,
fee-based management services are provided to self-insured groups
in California.  The company reports its business in four
segments: primary insurance, reinsurance, fee-based management
services, and corporate and other.  On Sept. 8, 2008, the company
ceased the operations of CRM and Eimar.


CRM HOLDINGS: Wants Real Estate Trust's N.Y. Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
CRM Holdings, Ltd.'s motion to dismiss a suit by filed by former
members of the Real Estate Management Trust of New York remains
pending in the  New York Supreme Court, Erie County, according to
the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

On Aug. 18, 2009, Arlen Senior Contracting of Central Islip LLC,
Anchor Building Maintenance Corp., Conifer Realty, LLC, Constanza
Enterprises, Inc., Court Plaza Senior Apartments, L.P., John
Wesley Village II, Midland Management, LLC, Niagara River World,
Inc., Plattsburgh Airbase Redevelopment Corp., and Wen Management
Corp., all of which were former members of the Real Estate
Management Trust of New York (the "Real Estate Trust"), on their
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, sued
CRM in New York State Supreme Court, Erie County.

The lawsuit seeks class action certification and alleges that
CRM:

     (1) breached its contract with the Real Estate Trust;

     (2) breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed
         to the Real Estate Trust;

     (3) breached its fiduciary duties owed to the Real Estate
         Trust;

     (4) was negligent in administering the Real Estate Trust;

     (5) engaged in deceptive business practices;

     (6) was unjustly enriched; and

     (7) should indemnify the plaintiffs for any assessments
         that they may incur.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages:

     (a) arising from the plaintiffs' joint and several
         liability for the deficit of the Real Estate Trust
         which, as of Dec. 31, 2006, was estimated at
         $1.6 million,

     (b) from any unpaid claims of the plaintiffs' injured
         employees in an amount presently undetermined,

     (c) from potentially being liable for the costs of
         liquidation charged or to be charged by the WCB, and

     (d) from fees paid by the plaintiffs and the Real Estate
         Trust to CRM pursuant the service agreement between CRM
         and the Real Estate Trust.

On Oct. 20, 2009, CRM filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
complaint.  

CRM Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.crmholdingsltd.com/ -- is a  
provider of workers' compensation insurance products.  The
company's main business activities include underwriting primary
workers' compensation policies, underwriting workers'
compensation reinsurance and excess insurance policies, and
providing fee-based management and other services to self-insured
entities.  Primary workers' compensation insurance is provided to
employers in California, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York and other states.  The company reinsures some of the
primary business it underwrites and provides excess workers'
compensation coverage for self-insured organizations.  Finally,
fee-based management services are provided to self-insured groups
in California.  The company reports its business in four
segments: primary insurance, reinsurance, fee-based management
services, and corporate and other.  On Sept. 8, 2008, the company
ceased the operations of CRM and Eimar.


CRM HOLDINGS: Wants Court to Dismiss Transportation Trust's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRM Holdings, Ltd.'s motion to dismiss a suit by filed by former
members of the Transportation Industry Workers' Compensation
Trust remains pending in the  New York Supreme Court, Erie
County, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Aug. 20, 2009, 70 Sheldon, Inc., Advance Relocation Storage,
Inc., All County Bus, LLC, Alpha Services of Westchester, Inc.,
A. T. & A. Trucking Corp., B. Pariso Transport, Inc., Carmen M.
Pariso, Inc., Covered Wagon Train, Inc., Exclusive Ambulette
Service, Inc. Ficel Transport, Inc., North Shore Ambulance and
Oxygen Service, Inc., Rivlab Transportation Corp., Woodland
Leasing Co., Inc., all of which were former members of the
Transportation Industry Workers' Compensation Trust (the
"Transportation Trust"), on their own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, sued CRM in New York State Supreme
Court, Erie County.

The lawsuit seeks class action certification and alleges that
CRM:

     (1) breached its contract with the Transportation Trust;

     (2) breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed
         to the Transportation Trust;

     (3) breached its fiduciary duties owed to the
         Transportation Trust;

     (4) was negligent in administering the Transportation
         Trust;

     (5) engaged in deceptive business practices;

     (6) was unjustly enriched; and

     (7) should indemnify the plaintiffs for any assessments
         that they may incur.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages:

     (a) arising from the plaintiffs' joint and several
         liability for the deficit of the Transportation Trust
         which, as of Dec. 31, 2006, was estimated at
         $6.1 million,

     (b) from any unpaid claims of the plaintiffs' injured          
         employees in an amount presently undetermined,

     (c) from potentially being liable for the costs of
         liquidation charged or to be charged by the WCB, and

     (d) from fees paid by the plaintiffs and the Transportation
         Trust to CRM pursuant the service agreement between CRM
         and the Transportation Trust.

On Oct. 20, 2009, CRM filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
complaint.

CRM Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.crmholdingsltd.com/ -- is a  
provider of workers' compensation insurance products.  The
company's main business activities include underwriting primary
workers' compensation policies, underwriting workers'
compensation reinsurance and excess insurance policies, and
providing fee-based management and other services to self-insured
entities.  Primary workers' compensation insurance is provided to
employers in California, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York and other states.  The company reinsures some of the
primary business it underwrites and provides excess workers'
compensation coverage for self-insured organizations.  Finally,
fee-based management services are provided to self-insured groups
in California.  The company reports its business in four
segments: primary insurance, reinsurance, fee-based management
services, and corporate and other.  On Sept. 8, 2008, the company
ceased the operations of CRM and Eimar.


FORD MOTOR: Suit Claims Minivan Torque Converters Are Defective
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ford Freestar and Mercury
Monterey 2004-06 minivans have defective torque converters that
disengage the transmission while the engine is running, a class
action claims in Minneapolis Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Diagle, et al. v. Ford Motor Company,
Case No. 09-cv-03214 (D. Minn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/18/Ford.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Craig S. Davis, Esq.
          Matthew B. Johnson, Esq.
          LOCKBRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2197
          Telephone: 612-339-6900

               - and -  

          Jay P. Saltzman, Esq.
          SCHOENGOLD & SPORN, P.C.
          19 Fulton St., Suite 406
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: 212-964-0046



GORILLA INC: Recalls 90 EXO-Tech Safety Harnesses
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Gorilla Inc., of Flushing, Mich., announced a voluntary recall of
about 90 EXO-Tech Safety Harnesses.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The webbing of the waist belt on the safety harness is not routed
through the lineman's loop located on the front of the harness
near waist level.  Since the loops are not properly anchored to
the harness webbing but are attached only through stitching not
intended to restrain a user during a fall, they that can pull
away from the harness when force is applied, leaving the user
unrestrained.  In addition, the manufacturer of the harness used
a previously untested carabiner connector located at the end of
the tether at the back of harness, which is the portion of the
tether that attaches to the tree.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The safety harness, used as a fall restraint for hunting, is
comprised of two leg straps and two shoulder straps, which
connect to a waist belt and padded back support.  There is a
long, black tether strap at the top rear of the safety harness,
which has grey and red accents.  The name EXO-Tech is located on
the right front shoulder strap and the name Gorilla is located on
the left front should strap both in white lettering.  Similar to
a shirt tag, there is a white manufacturing label on the inside
of the back of the harness with the model number 45111 and
manufacturing dates, 4/22/2009 or 6/26/2009.  These are the only
harnesses recalled.  

A picture of the recalled product is available at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10042.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the Philippines and
sold at Cabelas, Bass Pro and at various sporting goods stores
nationwide from May 2009 to August 2009 for about $200.

Consumers should immediately stop using the harness and contact
Gorilla Inc. to receive a refund.  For additional information,
contact Gorilla Inc. at (877) 685-7817 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:30
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.gorillatreestands.com/or write to the  
firm at Gorilla, Inc., P.O. 378, Flushing, MI 48433 or 3475
Eastman Drive, Flushing, MI 48433.


GRAND WORLD: Recalls 641,000 "Bobby Chupete" Pacifiers
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Grand World Inc., of Maspeth, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall
of about 641,000 "Bobby Chupete" Pacifiers.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The pacifiers fail to meet federal safety standards. The pacifier
mouth guard is too small, posing a choking hazard to infants and
toddlers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves "Bobby Chupete" pacifiers.  The pacifiers
have a ring-shaped handle and heart-shaped mouth guard with two
ventilation holes. The nipple is made of latex.  "Bobby Chupete"
and a picture of an infant are printed on the pacifier's
packaging.  The pacifier was sold in aqua, red, white or yellow
colors at various retail stores nationwide from November 2004
through July 2009 for about $1, and manufactured in China.  
Pictures of the recalled products are available at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10040.html

Consumers should immediately take the recalled pacifiers away
from infants and toddlers and contact Grand World for a refund or
a replacement pacifier.  For additional information, call Grand
World collect at (718) 326-7786 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.grandworldinc.com/


L G SOURCING: Recalls 664,700 Gas Grills Sold at Lowe's Stores
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada
announced a voluntary recall of about 664,700 Perfect Flame SLG
Series Gas Grills manufactured by Lucas Innovation Inc., of
China, and imported by L G Sourcing, Inc., of North Wilkesboro,
N.C.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.

The burners can deteriorate causing irregular flames and the lids
of some models can catch fire, posing fire and burn hazards to
the consumer.

L G Sourcing has received about 40 reports of fires from the
burners deteriorating and about 23 reports of the lids catching
fire.  The firm is aware of one report of an eye injury requiring
surgery and 21 incidents of minor burns to the hands, arms or
face.

The recalled grills are SLG series "Perfect Flame" brand outdoor
propane or natural gas grills.  The grills are stainless steel
and painted black or gray metal.  The model numbers affected by
this recall are listed below.  The model number can be found in
the compartment under the cooking chamber.  No other Perfect
Flame model numbers are included in this recall.

             Model    Replacement Burners     Replacement Lid
             -----    -------------------     ---------------
           SLG2006B           Yes                    No
           SLG2006BN          Yes                    No
           SLG2006C           Yes                    No
           SLG2006CN          Yes                    No
           SLG2007A           Yes                    Yes
           SLG2007B           Yes                    Yes
           SLG2007BN          Yes                    Yes
           SLG2007D           Yes                    No
           SLG2007DN          Yes                    No
           SLG2008A           Yes                    Yes


Pictures of the recalled product are available at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10043.html

The recalled grills were sold exclusively at Lowe's retail
outlets in the U.S. from September 2005 through May 2009 for
between US$200 and US$550 and in Canada from December 2007
through May 2009 for between C$200 and C$250.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
L G Sourcing to receive free replacement burners and, depending
on the model of the grill owned, a free replacement lid.  For
additional information, contact the firm toll-free at
(888) 840-9590 anytime, or visit http://www.lowes.com/


M-QUBE INC: Inks Global Settlement with KamberEdelson Clients
-------------------------------------------------------------
A global settlement agreement was reached promising to conclude
numerous separate class action lawsuits filed throughout the
country involving claims that unauthorized charges for "mobile
content" were placed on consumers' cell phone bills.   The
settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the Circuit Court
of Cook County in Illinois on November 3, 2009, entitles wireless
customers across the country to receive refunds for unauthorized
mobile content charges and requires that the defendants remain in
compliance with the consumer best practices guidelines
established by the Mobile Marketing Association.  The defendant,
m-Qube, Inc., has denied any wrongful conduct.  

Mobile content refers to products such as ringtones, games,
graphics, news, and other alerts that generally are received via
text messages on mobile phones and are charged directly to
customers' mobile phone bills.  Although a relatively new form of
commerce, mobile content has evolved to form a large and
increasingly important industry.  Defendant m-Qube acts as an
"aggregator" in the industry, which means that it acts as a
middleman between numerous merchants that sell mobile content and
the wireless carriers who provide wireless phone and data
service.  See www.mQubeSettlement.com for complete details.  

The lawsuit alleged that there were not adequate safeguards in
place to ensure that customers are only billed for services they
agreed to purchase.  The resolution of this suit follows several
other recent settlements in the mobile content industry related
to unauthorized charges.     

Chicago attorneys Jay Edelson, Esq., Myles McGuire, Esq., Rafey
S. Balabanian, Esq., and Ryan D. Andrews, Esq., of KamberEdelson,
LLC, were appointed by the Court to serve as the attorneys for
the class.  "m-Qube has decided to demonstrate leadership in
improving this growing industry and we applaud them for it,"
explained Edelson, "It took years of hard fought litigation and
negotiation to get to this point."

Class members are encouraged to go to:

     http://www.mQubeSettlement.com/

to learn more details about the settlement and how to apply for
refunds.  Class members may also call the claims administrator
directly at 1-800-207-0343 or class counsel at 1-866-354-3015.

m-Qube, Inc., is represented by:

          James L. Cooper, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER, LLC
          555 Twelfth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004


OLIN CORP: Feb. 18 Hearing Set to Review $1.3 Mil. Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                   DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

CLARENCE COLLINS, JR., et al.,  )    CIVIL ACTION
          Plaintiffs,           )    3-03-cv-945 (CFD)
      v.                        )
OLIN CORPORATION,               )
          Defendant.            )

                        SUMMARY NOTICE

     TO: ALL PERSONS WHO OWNED CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE NEWHALL
         NEIGHBORHOOD OF HAMDEN, CT ON MAY 2, 2003

     YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, a
hearing will be held on February 18, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Christopher F. Droney, United States Courthouse,
450 Main Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06103, for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the Action
for the sum of $1,396,000 in cash should be approved by the Court
as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether, therefore, this
Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendant
as set forth in the Settlement Agreement dated October 20, 2009;
(3) whether the plan for allocating the Settlement Fund is fair,
reasonable and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4)
the reasonableness of the application of Plaintiffs and
Plaintiffs' counsel for the payment of attorney fees and expenses
incurred in connection with this Action, together with interest
thereon.  

      If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to Clarence
Collins, Jr., et al v. Olin Corporation, c/o Cohen and Wolf, P.C.
1115 Broad Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 or calling
1-203-749-5568 or sending an e-mail to
newhallclassaction@gmail.com or by downloading this information
at http://www.newhallclassaction.com/

     If you are a Class member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of
Claim and Release no later than February 1, 2010, establishing
that you are entitled to a recovery.  You will be bound by any
judgment rendered in the Action unless you request to be
excluded, in writing, to the above address, by December 18, 2009.

     Any objection to the settlement must be filed with the Court
and mailed or delivered so it is received no later than January
18, 2010, by:

     Counsel for Plaintiffs:
                              
          Monte E. Frank, Esq.
          COHEN AND WOLF, P.C.
          1115 Broad Street
          Bridgeport, CT 06604

     Counsel for Defendant:

          Michael H. Wetmore, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL SANDERS, LLP
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105

            PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE
             CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

     Dated: November 4, 2009           BY ORDER OF THE COURT


SALOMON USA: Recalls 10,000 Alpine Ski Bindings
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Salomon USA, of Ogden, Utah, announced a voluntary recall of
about 10,000 Alpine Ski Bindings manufactured by Salomon SAS, of
France, that were manufactured in Romania.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The toe component of the ski bindings could fail to fully secure
the ski boot to the ski binding, causing the binding to release
unexpectedly. This could cause the skier to lose control or fall
and suffer injuries.

The firm has received two reports of injuries, including a broken
leg and a knee injury.

This recall involves the Salomon alpine ski bindings with models
LZ 7, LZ 8, LZ 9, LZ 7 SR, LZ 8 SR, LZ 8 SC, and J LZ 9 and the
Atomic ski bindings with model Evox 2.8, Evox 2.8+, Evox 2.8++,
and FFG 8. "Salomon" or "Atomic" and the respective model number
are displayed on the ski bindings. The toe components bear a
production date code ending in "8" that can be found on the
center plate where the toe of a ski boot contacts the toe
component of the bindings.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10045.html

The recalled products were sold by authorized Salomon USA and
Atomic USA ski dealers nationwide from September 2008 through
October 2009 for between $90 and $160.

Consumers should stop using these ski bindings immediately and
return the Salomon-brand ski bindings to any authorized Salomon
ski dealer, or return the Atomic-brand ski bindings to any
authorized Atomic ski dealer, for a free inspection and
replacement of the toe component.  For additional information,
contact the firm toll-free at (877) 789-5111 between 8:00 a.m.
and 4:00 p.m., Mountain TIme, Monday through Friday or e-mail
qualityinfo.usa@salomon-sports.com or visit the firm's Web sites
at http://www.salomon.com/or http://www.atomicsnow.com/


TD BANK: Motion to Dismiss Gift Card Domancy Fee Suit is Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a major setback for banks, Shannon P. Duffy at The Legal
Intelligencer reports, federal judges in Pennsylvania and New
Jersey have refused to dismiss a pair of class action consumer
suits against TD Bank over allegedly deceptive practices used to
market gift cards.

In both decisions, the judges rejected TD Bank's argument that
such suits, brought under state consumer protection laws, are
pre-empted by the federal National Bank Act.

At issue in both cases are so-called "dormancy fees" charged by
TD Bank that reduce the value of gift cards each month after a
period of non-use. Typically, if a card is not used for more than
six months, the bank begins charging a monthly fee of $2.50, the
suits say, so that a $25 card could be completely depleted before
the holder makes a single purchase.

Gift cards are a $300 billion annual business, according to court
papers, and consumer advocates have estimated that about 10
percent of the value of gift cards is never used, yielding a
windfall profit to the issuers.

The central claim in the suits is that consumers are never
properly warned of the fees, either at the time of purchase or in
the materials that accompany the cards when they are presented as
gifts.  The lead plaintiffs lawyers in both cases are:

          Leonard V. Fodera, Esq.
          Michael P. Lalli, Esq.
          SILVERMAN & FODERA
          1835 Market St., #2600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2910
          Telephone: (215) 561-2100

TD Bank's lawyers:

          Stephen G. Harvey, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Eighteenth and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Telephone: 215-981-4000

               - and -

          Angelo A. Stio, III, Esq.
          Eric J. Goldberg, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          301 Carnegie Center, Suite 400
          Princeton, NJ 08543-5276
          Telephone: 609-452-0808

moved for dismissal of both cases, arguing that the National Bank
Act and the regulations promulgated by the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency completely pre-empt such claims.

Congress, the defense team argued, intended the NBA and OCC
regulations to establish a uniform federal regulatory scheme for
national banks.  And since OCC regulations control the sale of
gift cards, any lawsuits brought under state consumer protection
laws would conflict with the NBA and OCC regulations.

In an interview, Mr. Harvey said TD Bank won on several key
issues when the plaintiffs lawyers conceded that they were barred
from suing over the amount or the timing of the gift card fees
because such claims would be pre-empted.  As a result, he said,
the suits focused only on allegedly deceptive marketing practices
that violate state consumer laws by failing to properly and
adequately notify purchasers and holders of the cards of the
existence of the fee scheme.

Now federal judges on both sides of the Delaware River have sided
with the plaintiffs and held that such consumer suits can no
longer be barred under any pre-emption doctrine.

In Mwantembe v. TD Bank, Case No. 09-cv-00135 (E.D. Pa.), U.S.
District Judge Timothy J. Savage found that a decision early this
year by the U.S. Supreme Court "caused a sea change in the
perception of the pre-emptive effect of the NBA and the OCC
regulations."

Judge Savage found that prior to the high court's decision in
Cuomo v. Clearing House Association, the lower federal courts
"appeared to be expanding the scope of federal pre-emption for
national banks."

But Cuomo "reverses this trend," Judge Savage said, "and has
dispelled the popular notion that all state laws that affect
national banks in any way or to any degree are pre-empted."

In Cuomo, the New York state attorney general sought information
"in lieu of a subpoena" from national banks to determine whether
they had violated New York's fair lending laws. The district
court enjoined the attorney general from enforcing those state
laws through demands for records or judicial proceedings, and the
2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, citing the pre-
emptive effect of the NBA and OCC regulations.

But the Supreme Court rejected that reasoning, holding instead
that courts must distinguish between a sovereign state's
visitorial powers and its enforcement power.  Only visitorial
powers are pre-empted, the justices said, leaving the states free
to enforce their laws so long as they are not contrary to or
expressly pre-empted by federal law.

The decision cleared the way for state attorneys general to file
suit against national banks for violating state consumer
protection laws.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Two RAV4 SUV Lawsuits Filed in California Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Toyota knew its 2001-2003
RAV4 sports utility vehicles have "a dangerous safety defect that
causes the engine control modules and/or automatic transmissions
to fail prematurely," but sold them anyway and won't repair or
replace them, a class action claims in San Francisco Federal
Court.  

A copy of the Complaint in Milligan v. Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-05418 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/19/ToyotaRAV4.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC
          3600 Fremont Avenue North
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: 206-816-6603

               - and -  

          Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq.
          MERRILL, NOMURA & MOLINEUX LLP
          350 Rose Street
          Danville, CA 94526
          Telephone: 925-833-1000

Courthouse News Service reports that Another class action, in
L.A. Federal Court, says Toyota concealed a dangerously defective
throttle control system in its 2001 Lexus and 2002-03 Lexus and
Camrys.

A copy of the Complaint in Kmetz, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 09-cv-08478 (C.D. Calif.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/19/ToyotaLA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
          Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
          Heather M. Peterson, Esq.
          KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
          2361 Rosecrans Ave., 4th Floor
          El Segundo, CA 90245          
          Telephone: 310-536-1000


WAL-MART STORES: Accused in Va. Lawsuit of Selling Used Goods
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that a woman says
Wal-Mart sold her a used video camera as new, and she can prove
it because her daughters saw graphic pornography on it.  The
federal class action accuses Wal-Mart of negligence and violating
consumer laws.

April Cortez says her 10- and 13-year-old girls found the
"graphic pornography" on the camera, which left them "both crying
hysterically" with "severe emotional trauma."

She says that when she saw the porn to which her daughters had
been exposed, "she became emotionally distraught and physically
ill herself, to such a degree that she was incapable of
comforting and calming her daughters at that moment, ultimately
requiring her husband to deal with the situation."

Ms. Cortez says Wal-Mart sells used and returned merchandise as
new without telling its customers.  She claims that if Wal-Mart
employees discover that a returned item has been damaged or is
missing a component, they simply slap a discount tag on it,
usually 10%, and put it back on the shelves.
     
The new price tag looks identical to the original and contains no
warnings that the merchandise has been used, she says.

"Wal-Mart recognizes that if it disclosed to the public that an
item had been previously used or returned, it could not
successfully re-sell the item for 90-100% of its original price
in most instances," Ms. Cortez says.
     
She says that's how her young daughters were exposed to
pornography on a presumptively new camera. Wal-Mart chooses not
to disclose to customers that merchandise has been returned, so
it can increase its profits, Cortez says.
     
She claims that Wal-Mart has a history of putting returned
merchandise back on the shelves without inspecting it, and that
numerous complaints have been filed by consumers who bring their
"new" electronics home only to find the box filled with rocks,
paper or other materials.
     
She seeks punitive damages and attorney fees.

A copy of the Complaint in Cortez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case
No. 09-cv-00725 (E.D. Va.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/19/WalMartPorn.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Erausquin, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: 703-273-7770


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Court Doesn't Let JPMorgan Off the HELOC Hook
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a victory for former home equity line of credit (HELOC)
customers of Washington Mutual Bank ("WAMU") who have been harmed
by Chase's broad-based HELOC credit reductions and suspensions, a
federal court last Thursday denied a motion by JPMorgan Chase
Bank (NYSE:JPM) that sought to require former WaMu customers to
sue the F.D.I.C. -- even in those instances where Chase itself is
alleged to have acted illegally.

Cupertino homeowners Jeffrey and Jenifer Schulken, who originated
their HELOC with WaMu, had their line suspended by Chase earlier
this year when Chase claimed the couple's finances would not
allow them to make their HELOC payments.  This is despite the
fact the Schulkens enjoy excellent credit scores, maintain steady
incomes, always make their payments on time and even pay extra
toward the principal.  The Schulkens responded by filing a
lawsuit seeking class action status on behalf of all Chase
customers who have had their HELOCs suspended or reduced
unlawfully.

Chase responded by filing a motion to dismiss that argued it had
no responsibility to former WaMu borrowers.  According to Chase,
although it purchased WaMu's assets, it supposedly did not
acquire any liability -- even for its own misconduct.  "Chase's
unprecedented position was fairly simple:  Chase can harm former
WaMu customers with impunity, and anyone who suffers damages
should have to go sue the F.D.I.C.," says the Schulkens' attorney
Jay Edelson, Esq., whose law firm, KamberEdelson LLC, has filed
similar class actions against Chase, WaMu, Wells Fargo and
Citibank.  As Mr. Edelson explains, "Under Chase's reasoning, it
could seize former WaMu borrowers' homes by force and throw
people out on the street, and the only recourse would be for the
former WaMu customers to sue the F.D.I.C.  The court saw through
Chase's arrogant -- and frankly scary -- position."   

Chase purchased WaMu from the F.D.I.C. in September 2008 for $1.9
billion.  Through creative "purchase accounting," experts have
forecast that Chase will realize a $29 billion windfall as a
result of the acquisition.

"Its have your cake and $29 billion too," continued Edelson.  
"Chase was supposed to use the bailout money to lend to consumers
-- not to freeze up credit lines.  More than anything, it shows
that Chase's attitude is that no matter how poorly it behaves,
the government should be on the hook for its improper acts.  Its
as if the bailout taught it nothing."

Edelson had called upon Congress to act, a movement that is
gaining significant support.  "Call your Congressman and ask them
where the bailout money went.  It isn't being used to get credit
flowing, that's for sure."

Mr. Edelson is joined in the suit by KamberEdelson attorneys Evan
Meyers, Esq., Steven Lezell, Esq., and Irina Slavina, Esq.

                        About KamberEdelson

Jay Edelson, Esq., testified before the U.S. Senate in 2008 in
connection with the contaminated pet food recall, in which his
law firm was lead counsel and achieved a result in a settlement
of over $24 million.  He has a reputation for bringing and
winning high profile class action lawsuits.  Just last year,
Edelson settled a nationwide case involving lead paint
contamination with Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends Wooden
Railway children's toys that was valued at over $30 million.


WELLS FARGO: Buying Back $1.4 Billion of Auction Rate Securities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Miller at The Recorder reports that Wells Fargo & Co. will
buy back an estimated $700 million in troubled auction-rate
securities from California investors under terms of a settlement
announced by Attorney General Jerry Brown last week.

The banking giant will also pay the AG's office $600,000 to cover
investigation expenses and monitoring of the settlement's terms.
In exchange, Mr. Brown will drop the civil lawsuit he filed
against Wells Fargo in San Francisco Superior Court in April.

"Wells Fargo convinced thousands of investors to purchase
auction-rate securities with promises of robust returns and
liquidity, but when the market collapsed, investors were left out
in the cold," Mr. Brown said.

In a separate deal reached with the North American Securities
Administrators Association -- which included investigators from
the California Department of Corporations and other states'
regulators -- the San Francisco-based banker has agreed to
repurchase non-liquid auction rate securities totaling
approximately $700 million from non-California residents.  The
Department of Corporations is finalizing a separate consent order
with Wells Fargo and will receive an undetermined amount of
penalties from the company.

"We have been working with ARS issuers since the auction rate
market froze, and while there has been progress, redemptions by
issuers have not occurred as fast as anyone would have hoped or
predicted," Wells Fargo Investments CEO Charles Daggs said in a
statement.  "We are glad to have resolved this for our
customers."

Mr. Brown accused three subsidiaries of the bank of peddling the
debt instruments as safe, cash-like investments that could be
sold at periodic auctions.  But as the sub-prime mortgage crisis
hit, the auctions failed and investors could no longer cash out.

Under terms of the deal with Mr. Brown, individuals, charities,
trusts and corporations who purchased auction-rate securities
worth less than $10 million as of Jan. 31, 2008, are eligible for
the buyback.  The securities had to be purchased before Feb. 14,
2008, and they had to have failed at auction at least once since
then.

Customers who sold their securities at a loss between Feb. 13,
2008, and Nov. 19, 2009, will be offered the difference between
their sale price and par, plus "reasonable" interest, according
to the agreement.  Since 2008, lawsuits and investigations
brought by state regulators have pressured firms to repurchase
more than $61 billion in auction-rate securities, according to
the North American Securities Administrators Association.

At Girard Gibbs, the San Francisco firm serving as lead counsel
in 13 auction-rate securities class actions, attorneys were still
reviewing terms of the attorney general's settlement to see
whether their clients will be made whole.

While some plaintiffs have recovered their investments through
past broker-dealer buybacks, others, particularly corporations,
have been excluded by terms of legal settlements, said Girard
Gibbs' Managing Partner, Daniel Girard, Esq.  Settlement
negotiators often argue that corporations should have known
better the risks of auction-rate securities than individual
investors, Mr. Girard said.  Mr. Girard and his colleagues
contend that no one could have known the risky nature of the
investment vehicles without "inside information."

Girard Gibbs still has litigation pending on behalf of investors
excluded from settlements as well as plaintiffs targeting
securities re-marketers that have not settled with regulators.


YOUBET.COM: Shareholders Sue in Calif. To Get More from Churchill
----------------------------------------------------------------
at Courthouse News Service reports that Youbet.com is selling
itself too cheaply to Churchill Downs, for $127 million,
shareholders say in Los Angeles Superior Court.


ZYNGA GAME: Sued, with Facebook, for Improper Credit Card Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that Facebook and
game developer Zynga help to scam customers with misleading ads
that dupe them into revealing their telephone and credit card
numbers and then bill them for bogus charges, a class action
claims in Federal Court.

Players of Facebook games, including "Farmville" and "Mafia
Wars," say they were scammed by misleading ads that persuade them
to exchange their credit card and cell phone numbers in exchange
for virtual cash to use in video games.

Lead plaintiff Rebecca Swift says she gave her cell phone number
to a Zynga advertiser in exchange for a code redeemable for
"Yocash," virtual money to use in the Zynga game "Yoville." Swift
says that as a result, her cell phone was charged three times for
$9.99 without her knowledge or permission.

On another occasion, Swift says she agreed to participate in a
free trial for a green tea herbal supplement for more "Yocash."
She provided a Zynga advertiser with her credit card number, and
says she tried to cancel the trial before it ended. Nonetheless,
Ms. Swift says she was charged more than $165 for the green tea
supplements and was unable to get a refund.

At least 10 percent of Facebook's revenue is generated from
users' participation in the "special offers," and Zynga has made
from $33 million to $84 million from unwitting Facebook gamers
who responded to the misleading ads, the complaint states.

The complaint cites a speech it attributes to Zynga CEO Mark
Pincus, in which Pincus allegedly admits duping users for profit:
"So I funded the company myself but I did every horrible thing in
the book to just get revenues right away."

In response to media criticism, Zynga this month banned all
special offers promoted through its games and Facebook also tried
to bar the misleading ads, according to the complaint. But the
class claims that neither company has offered to reimburse them
for the money they lost.

The class demands restitution for unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Swift v. Zynga Game Network Inc. and
Facebook, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-05443 (N.D. Calif.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/19/ZyngaFace.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William A. Kershaw, Esq.
          C. Brooks Cutter, Esq.
          Stuart C. Talley, Esq.
          John R. Parker, Jr., Esq.
          KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP
          401 Watt Street
          Sacramento, CA 95864     
          Telephone: 916-448-9800

               - and -  

          Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq.
          Ian J. Barlow, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          455 Capitol Mall, Suite 231
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: 916-492-1100

                            *********

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  * * *