CAR_Public/091126.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, November 26, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 234
  
                            Headlines

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Accused of Denying Pa. Drivers Discounts
AMH CGH: Settlement in San Ramon Regional Medical Center Case
AVERY DENNISON: Pennsylvania District Court Dismisses All Claims
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Verizon Charged with Deceptive Data Practice
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Lawsuit Over Stock Option Backdating Pending

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Plaintiffs' Appeal in ERISA Suit Pending
HARRAHS ENTERTAINMENT: Delaware Court Dismisses Murchison Suit
HARRAHS ENTERTAINMENT: Tribe Files Notice of Appeal
HCA INC: Gets Final Settlement in "Nursing Understaffing" Suit
JP MORGAN: Bear Stearns Investors' Motion to Consolidate Denied

KADANT INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal Order Still Pending
MATCH.COM: Class Action Lawsuit Moved from New York to Texas
MERIX CORP: Consolidated Complaint in Oregon in Discovery Phase
MERIX CORP: Faces Two Suits Resulting from Viasystems Merger
OKLAHOMA: 10th Cir. Hears Debate About Foster Care Certification

SEOUL TRADING: All Kinds of Fraud Alleged at Grocery Chain
U.S. HOME: $1.5 Mil. Settlement in Calif. Labor Suit Pending
U.S. HOMES: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Lawsuit
U.S. HOMES: Wants Ex-Employee Suit Removed to Northern Calif.
U.S. HOMES: FLSA Violations Suit Remains Pending in California

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

CVS CAREMARK: Shareholder Complaint Filed in D. R.I.
SUNPOWER CORP: Two Shareholder Complaint Filed in N.D. Calif.
THE PARK AVENUE: Shareholder Complaint Filed in N.Y. State Court
ZALE CORP: Shareholder Complaint Filed in N.D. Texas

                            *********

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Accused of Denying Pa. Drivers Discounts
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Allstate refuses to give a
discount to customers whose cars have anti-theft equipment, which
is required by Pennsylvania law, a class action claims in
Philadelphia Federal Court.  Similar complaints were filed
against Peerless, State Farm, Encompass, and Progressive
Insurance.

A copy of the Complaint in Mecadon v. Allstate Indemnity Company,
Case No. 09-cv-05511 (E.D. Pa.) (Baylson, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/20/Insurance.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ira Neil Richards, Esq.
          Kenneth I. Trujillo, Esq.
          Jennifer E. Agnew, Esq.
          Gary Goldstein, Esq.
          TRUJILLO RODRIGUEZ & RICHARDS, LLC
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 3838
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-731-9004

               - and -  

          John G. Jacobs, Esq.
          Bryan G. Kolton, Esq.
          THE JACOBS LAW FIRM, CHTD.
          122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312-427-4000

               - and -  

          Joseph E. Mariotti, Esq.
          CAPUTO & MARIOTTI, P.C.
          730 Main Street
          Moosic, PA 18507
          Telephone: 570-342-9999


AMH CGH: Settlement in San Ramon Regional Medical Center Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
               NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES WITH DISABILITIES AS THAT
    TERM HAS BEEN DEFINED BY 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12102(2), INCLUDING
    THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE AN IMPAIRMENT THAT SUBSTANTIALLY
    LIMITS A MAJOR LIFE FUNCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
    MOBILITY, HEARING, AND SIGHT, WHO SEEK, HAVE SOUGHT, OR WILL
    SEEK ACCESS TO OR USE OF ANY GOOD, SERVICE, PROGRAM,
    FACILITY, PRIVILEGE, OR ACCOMMODATION OF THE FACILITIES OF
    SAN RAMON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER.

You are covered by and will be bound by the settlement of a class
action lawsuit involving physical access barriers at the
facilities of San Ramon Regional Medical Center.  This Notice is
to inform you of facts that affect your legal rights.

SUMMARY OF LAWSUIT

A class action lawsuit entitled Access Now, Inc. et al. v. AMH
CGH, Inc. et al., Case No. 98-3004-CIV-GOLD/ SIMONTON, is
currently pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida involving disability access at the
facilities of San Ramon Regional Medical Center.  The complaint
alleges on behalf of all disabled individuals that the Medical
Center is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
because it has failed to provide equal access for persons with
disabilities to the Medical Center's facilities.  The Medical
Center denies these allegations.  By entering into a settlement
of this action, the Medical Center does not admit that it engaged
in any wrongful action or inaction.  This lawsuit has been
certified by the Court as a class action.  The named plaintiffs
serve as class representatives, and their counsel are:

          Miguel M. de la O, Esq.
          David E. Marko
          de la O, Marko, Magolnick, Leyton
          3001 SW 3rd Ave.
          Miami, Florida 33129

Those lawyers serve as counsel for the class.  

The Medical Center is represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

DEFINITION OF THE CLASS

You are a member of the class if you are an individual with any
type of disability whatsoever, and seek, have sought, or will
seek access to or use of any facilities of the Medical Center.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

The named plaintiffs and the Medical Center have reached a
proposed settlement of this class action lawsuit, which provides
that the Medical Center will make modifications and alterations
to its facilities with the purpose of providing equal access to
and usability of the facilities by persons with disabilities. No
money damages are to be paid to members of the class.

PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE SETTLEMENT

Court Hearing. On January 22, 2010, at 2:00 PM, the court will
hold a hearing at the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, Courtroom 11-1, located at 300 N.E. 1st
Avenue, Miami, Florida 33132, to determine whether the proposed
settlement agreement is fair and reasonable.

Objections to the Settlement. If you believe the Court should not
approve the settlement, you may advise the Court of your
objections. In order to be considered, your objections must be in
writing, signed, and sent via first-class mail to: Clerk of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Courtroom 11-1, 300 N.E. 1st Avenue, Miami, Florida,
33132. A copy should also be mailed to counsel for the class at
the address set forth below. Objections will not be considered by
the Court unless received on or before December 22, 2009. Your
written statement should specify in detail the factual basis
and/or legal grounds on which you base your objections. If you
provide written objections, you may appear in person at the
hearing before the Court on January 22, 2010, as described above,
to express your views concerning the settlement. An attorney may
also appear at the hearing on your behalf. If you and/or your
attorney intend to appear at the hearing, you should so advise
the Court in the written statement of your objections. Any class
member who fails to file a timely written objection may not
appear before the Court at the hearing to voice objections
relating to the adequacy and/or fairness of the proposed
settlement.

Entry of Judgment. If the settlement is approved by the Court,
the order approving the settlement and a judgment dismissing this
action with prejudice as to San Ramon Regional Medical Center
will be entered.

You should not expect to receive any further notices concerning
the entry of such order and judgment. All class members will be
bound by the judgment, which will bar class members from
asserting any claims against the Medical Center concerning
physical, communication, structural, and program access barrier.
All class members are deemed to have waived the protection
provided by any state law with respect to unknown claims at the
time of a general release, and the general release forever
discharges any claims relating to physical, communication,
structural, and program access barriers, if any, at the Medical
Center by a class member whether known or unknown to the class
member at the time of the settlement agreement.

FURTHER INFORMATION

The nature of this lawsuit and the proposed settlement are
summarized in this Notice. More detailed information, including a
copy of the settlement agreement, may be obtained from class
counsel or by consulting the public file on the case at the
Office of the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court,
Southern District of Florida, 301 N. Miami Avenue, Miami,
Florida.

           PLEASE FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES SET OUT ABOVE.

                 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE JUDGE
                    OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT
             WITH ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT.


AVERY DENNISON: Pennsylvania District Court Dismisses All Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
has issued an order of final approval and judgment thus
dismissing all claims against Avery Dennison Corp., according to
the company's Nov. 11, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 3,
2009.

On April 24, 2003, Sentry Business Products, Inc. filed a
purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of label
stock in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against the company, UPM-Kymmene Corporation, Bemis
Company Inc., and certain of their subsidiaries seeking treble
damages and other relief for alleged unlawful competitive
practices, with allegations including that the defendants
attempted to limit competition among themselves through
anticompetitive understandings.

Ten similar complaints were filed in various federal district
courts.

In November 2003, the cases were transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and consolidated
for pretrial purposes.

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on Feb. 16, 2004, which
the company answered on March 31, 2004.

On April 14, 2004, the court separated the proceedings as to
class certification and merits discovery, and limited the initial
phase of discovery to the issue of the appropriateness of class
certification.

On Jan. 4, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On Jan. 20, 2006, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint.

On Aug. 14, 2006, the plaintiffs moved to certify a proposed
class.

The court substantively granted class certification on Nov. 19,
2007.

On July 22, 2008, the court held a hearing to set a schedule for
merits discovery.

On May 12, 2009, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with plaintiffs.

Without admitting liability, the company agreed to pay plaintiffs
$36.5 million, plus up to $.5 million related to notice and
administration expenses, in two equal installments of $18.5
million, which were paid on May 27, 2009 and July 15, 2009.

On June 10, 2009, the district court entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement, and on Sept. 17, 2009,
the district court issued an order of final approval and
judgment, dismissing all claims against the company with
prejudice.

Avery Dennison Corporation -- http://www.averydennison.com/-- is  
engaged in the production of pressure-sensitive materials, office
products and a variety of tickets, tags, labels and other
converted products.  The company's segments are Pressure-
sensitive Materials, Retail Information Services and Office and
Consumer Products.  Pressure-sensitive materials are sold to
label printers and converters that convert the materials into
labels and other products through embossing, printing, stamping
and die-cutting.  Some are sold in converted form as printable
media, tapes and reflective sheeting.  It also manufactures and
sells a variety of office products and other converted products
and other items not involving pressure-sensitive components, such
as binders, organizing systems, markers, fasteners, business
forms, as well as tickets, tags, radio-frequency identification
(RFID) inlays, and imprinting equipment for retail and apparel
manufacturers.  On April 1, 2008, it acquired DM Label Group (DM
Label).


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Verizon Charged with Deceptive Data Practice
----------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that Verizon
Wireless designed its cell phones to make errors inevitable and
makes hundreds of millions dollars a month from a prominently
placed data-transfer key that facilitates the mistakes, a class
action claims in King County Court.  Customers are charged $1.99
when they hit the data transfer key even if they cancel the
request immediately and even if no data is transmitted, the
complaint states. Lead plaintiff Carolyn Alcorn says she learned
about the "intentionally deceptive practices" from a Nov. 12 New
York Times article that quoted a Verizon whistleblower saying,
"The phone is designed in such a way that you can almost never
avoid getting $1.99 charged on the bill."

The whistleblower claimed that "Every month, the 87 million
customers will accidentally hit that key a few times a month.
That's over $300 million a month in data revenue off a simple
mistake," according to the complaint.

Ms. Alcorn says she investigated her own bill after reading the
Times story, "and learned that she had become a victim of those
practices."

Citing the Times article, the complaint adds: "They [Verizon]
have started training us reps that too many data blocks are being
put on accounts now; they're actually making us take classes
called Alternatives to Data Blocks. They do not want all the
blocks, because 40 percent of Verizon's revenue now comes from
data use. I just know there are millions of people out there that
don't even notice this $1.99 on the bill."

Ms. Alcorn seeks disgorgement, an injunction, and class damages
for violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Alcorn v. Cellco Partnership dba
Verizon Wireless, Case No. 09-2-41650-8 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct.,
King Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/20/VerizonPhone.pdf
     
The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Du Wors, Esq.
          Derek Linke, Esq.
          NEWMAN & NEWMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 274-2800


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Lawsuit Over Stock Option Backdating Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Morefield vs. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al., Case
No. 09-cv-1176 (D. Nev.), is pending, according to the company's
Nov. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 2, 2009.

On May 29, 2009, the class action lawsuit was filed in state
court against the company and certain current and former officers
and directors asserting claims for declarative and injunctive
relief related to stock option backdating.  The alleged factual
basis for the claims is the same as that which was alleged in
prior derivative actions.  

On June 30, 2009, the company removed the state court proceeding,
Morefield v. Computer Sciences Corporation, Case No. A-09-591338-
C (Clark Cty. Nev.) to federal court.  

The defendants deny the allegations in the Complaint.  

On July 29, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the
case to state court, and that motion is now fully briefed and
awaiting decision.

The federal court has suspended further activity pending a ruling
on the remand motion.

Computer Sciences Corp. -- http://www.csc.com/-- is a player in   
the information technology and professional services industry.  
CSC offers an array of services to clients in the Global
Commercial and government markets.  Its service offerings include
IT and business process outsourcing, and IT and professional
services.  CSC also provides business process
outsourcing, managing key functions for clients, such as
procurement and supply chain, call centers and customer
relationship management, credit services, claims processing and
logistics.  IT and professional services include systems
integration, consulting and other professional services.
Systems integration encompasses designing, developing,
implementing and integrating complete information systems.
Consulting and professional services includes advising clients
on the acquisition and utilization of IT and on business
strategy, security, modeling, simulation, engineering,
operations, change management and business process
reengineering.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Plaintiffs' Appeal in ERISA Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs in the consolidated class action
lawsuit captioned In Re Computer Sciences Corp. ERISA Litigation,
Case No. CV 08-2398 (C.D. Calif.) (Otero, J.), against the
summary judgment ruling entered in July 2009 remains pending,
according to the company's Nov. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Oct. 2, 2009.

On Aug. 15, 2006, a federal ERISA class action complaint in Quan,
et al.  v. CSC, et al., CV 06-3927 (E.D.N.Y.), made allegations
of backdating stock options against the Company.  On Sept. 21,
2006, a related ERISA class action complaint was filed in Gray,
et al. v. CSC, et al., CV 06-5100 (E.D.N.Y.).  The complaints
named as defendants the company, the company's Retirement and
Employee Benefits Plans Committee and various directors and
officers, and alleged various violations of the ERISA statute.

The two ERISA actions were consolidated and, on Feb. 28, 2007,
plaintiffs filed an amended ERISA class action complaint.  On
Jan. 8, 2008, the consolidated proceeding was transferred to
California.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and plaintiffs filed their
memorandum in opposition to the motion.  Plaintiffs also filed a
motion for class certification, and defendants filed their
memorandum in opposition to the motion on Aug. 11, 2008.  On
Sept. 2, 2008, Judge Otero issued orders denying defendants'
motion to dismiss, and also denying plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  Defendants answered the complaint and the
parties conducted discovery.  

On Nov. 13, 2008, plaintiffs filed a new motion for class
certification and the defendants filed a memorandum in opposition
on Dec. 8, 2008.  On Dec. 29, 2008, Judge Otero granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  

On Jan. 13, 2009, defendants filed a petition with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requesting that the Court of
Appeals accept their appeal from the order granting class
certification.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition on Jan. 23,
2009.  The Court of Appeals denied defendants' request for
permission to appeal on March 12, 2009.  

Discovery closed on April 28, 2009.  

Defendants and plaintiffs each filed motions for summary judgment
on May 4, 2009.  Reply briefs were filed on May 22, 2009.  On
July 13, 2009, Judge Otero issued an order granting summary
judgment in favor of defendants.  On July 28, 2009, plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief on Sept. 9, 2009.

The brief of defendants-appellees was filed on Oct. 30, 2009.

Computer Sciences Corp. -- http://www.csc.com/-- is a player in   
the information technology and professional services industry.  
CSC offers an array of services to clients in the Global
Commercial and government markets.  Its service offerings include
IT and business process outsourcing, and IT and professional
services.  CSC also provides business process
outsourcing, managing key functions for clients, such as
procurement and supply chain, call centers and customer
relationship management, credit services, claims processing and
logistics.  IT and professional services include systems
integration, consulting and other professional services.
Systems integration encompasses designing, developing,
implementing and integrating complete information systems.
Consulting and professional services includes advising clients
on the acquisition and utilization of IT and on business
strategy, security, modeling, simulation, engineering,
operations, change management and business process
reengineering.


HARRAHS ENTERTAINMENT: Delaware Court Dismisses Murchison Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has
dismissed a purported class action lawsuit against Harrah's
Entertainment, Inc., 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. 9, 2009, S. Blake Murchison and Willis Shaw filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 09-00020-SLR, against
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. and its board of directors, and
Harrah's Operating Company, Inc.

The lawsuit was amended on March 4, 2009, alleging that the bond
exchange offer which closed on Dec. 24, 2008, wrongfully impaired
the rights of bondholders.

The amended complaint alleges, among others, breach of the bond
indentures, violation of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939,
equitable rescission, and liability claims against the members of
the board.

The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class
certification of the lawsuit, declaratory relief that the alleged
violations occurred, unspecified damages to the class, and
attorneys' fees.

On April 30, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

Prior to responding to the motion to dismiss, the defendants
stipulated to the plaintiff's request to dismiss the lawsuit,
without prejudice, which the court entered on June 18, 2009. Both
sides have reserved the right to request the court to award
attorneys fees.

Las Vegas, Nevada-based Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. --
http://www.harrahs.com/-- operates nearly 40 casinos across the
United States, primarily under the Harrah's(R), Caesars(R) and
Horseshoe(R) brand names; Harrah's also owns the London Clubs
International family of casinos and the World Series of Poker(R).  
Private equity firms Apollo Global Management and TPG Capital LP
acquired Harrah's in January for $31 billion.


HARRAHS ENTERTAINMENT: Tribe Files Notice of Appeal
---------------------------------------------------
The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe has filed a Notice of Appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on the decision of
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York's
summary judgment in favor of Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.

In April 2000, the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe granted Caesars the
exclusive rights to develop a casino project in the State of New
York.

On April 26, 2000, certain individual members of the Tribe
purported to commence a class action proceeding in a "Tribal
Court" in Hogansburg, New York, against Caesars seeking to
nullify Caesars' agreement with the Tribe.

On March 20, 2001, the "Tribal Court" purported to render a
default judgment against Caesars in the amount of $1,787 million.

Prior to the company's acquisition of Caesars in June 2005, it
was believed that this matter was settled pending execution of
final documents and mutual releases.

Although fully executed settlement documents were never provided,
on March 31, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York dismissed litigation concerning the validity
of the judgment, without prejudice, while retaining jurisdiction
to reopen that litigation, if, within three months thereof, the
settlement had not been completed.

On June 22, 2007, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York against the company by
certain trustees of the Catskill Litigation Trust alleging the
Catskill Litigation Trust had been assigned the "Tribal Court"
judgment and seeks to enforce it, with interest.

According to a "Tribal Court" order, accrued interest through
July 9, 2007, was approximately $1,014 million.

On Sept. 28, 2009, the Court entered summary judgment against the
Tribe and dismissed the action, ruling that although alternative
grounds were presented in the motion, the subject matter of the
action was asserted in a prior action and settled by and oral
agreement to end that matter with prejudice.

On Oct. 27, 2009, the Tribe filed a Notice of Appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The
company intends to oppose the appeal, 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.

Las Vegas, Nevada-based Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. --
http://www.harrahs.com/-- operates nearly 40 casinos across the
United States, primarily under the Harrah's(R), Caesars(R) and
Horseshoe(R) brand names; Harrah's also owns the London Clubs
International family of casinos and the World Series of Poker(R).  
Private equity firms Apollo Global Management and TPG Capital LP
acquired Harrah's in January for $31 billion.


HCA INC: Gets Final Settlement in "Nursing Understaffing" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
HCA, Inc., has reached a final settlement with the plaintiffs in
a lawsuit alleging nursing understaffing in its hospitals,
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 April 10, 2006, a class action complaint was filed against the
company in the District Court of Kansas alleging, among other
matters, nurse understaffing at all of its hospitals, certain
consumer protection act violations, negligence and unjust
enrichment.

The complaint is seeking, among other relief, declaratory relief
and monetary damages, including disgorgement of profits of
$12.250 billion.  A motion to dismiss this action was granted on
July 27, 2006, but the plaintiffs appealed this dismissal.

While the appeal was pending, the Kansas Supreme Court for the
first time construed the Kansas Consumer Protection Act to apply
to the provision of medical services.

Based on that new ruling, the 10th Circuit reversed the district
court's dismissal and remanded the action for further
consideration by the trial court.  The company has reached a
final settlement with the named plaintiffs in this action.

Headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, HCA, Inc. --
http://www.hcahealthcare.com/-- is the nation's leading provider  
of healthcare services.  As of June 30, 2008, HCA operated 169
hospitals and 107 freestanding surgery centers, including eight
hospitals and eight freestanding surgery centers operated through
equity method joint ventures.


JP MORGAN: Bear Stearns Investors' Motion to Consolidate Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Gray, Esq., of the Law Office of Christopher J. Gray,
P.C. in New York City, informs investors of a ruling in the case
Crowe v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), as successor in
interest to The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., Case No. 09-CV-778
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  

The Court denied the plaintiffs in the Crowe case's motion not to
have their case consolidated with the class action case on behalf
of Bear, Stearns investors that is pending in the same court. The
Court reasoned that there were factual and legal issues in common
between the class action and the Crowe case and that adjudicating
the cases together would be more efficient. The Court's order can
be accessed at http://is.gd/52IQZfrom the Gray firm's Web site.  

The plaintiffs in Crowe are investors who sustained substantial
losses in options on Bear, Stearns stock at the time of the
collapse of Bear, Stearns during March 2008. The class action
case asserts claims on behalf of all investors who acquired the
equity securities (or options on same) of The Bear Stearns
Companies, Inc. (NYSE: BSC) between December 14, 2006, and March
14, 2008, inclusive.

All Class members have the right to opt out of participating in
the class action and file their own individual claims through
their own individual attorneys in the event of any settlement in
the class action. In addition, investors who acquired Bear,
Stearns securities before December 14, 2006, and held same
through March 2008, purchasers and holders of debt securities,
and/or employees who held Bear, Stearns employee equity units at
the time of Bear, Stearns' collapse, may be able to assert
individual claims that are not included in the class action by
filing their own individual lawsuits.

The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. has represented
investors in several opt-out securities lawsuits. Research shows
that plaintiffs who file opt-out lawsuits and pursue their own
cases are generally faring much better than the reported 2.2
percent average recovery obtained for investors in class action
settlements in 2006. For example, in the recent AOL Time Warner
securities litigation, many opt-out plaintiffs obtained
recoveries far in excess of what they would have obtained had
they remained class members, including recoveries of between 16
and 24 times the amount that investors would have received
through the class action case.

Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. is not court-appointed
lead counsel and does not represent the plaintiffs in the class
action, and this news release has not been ordered or approved by
the Court. Investors who wish to remain members of the Class but
do not wish to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff need do nothing
at the present time.

Investors seeking more information about their legal options in
connection with the collapse of Bear, Stearns may contact:

          Christopher J. Gray, Esq.
          Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C.
          460 Park Avenue, 21st Floor
          New York, New York 10022
          Telephone: (212) 838-3221
          

KADANT INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal Order Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the decision of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts' decision dismissing the
complaint against Kadant Inc. is still pending, according to the
company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 3,
2009.

The company has been named as a co-defendant, together with
Kadant Composites LLC and another defendant, in a consumer class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on Dec. 27, 2007 on behalf of a putative class
of individuals who own GeoDeck(TM) decking or railing products
manufactured by Composites LLC between April 2002 and October
2003.

The complaint in this matter purports to assert, among other
things, causes of action for unfair and deceptive trade
practices, fraud, negligence, breach of warranty and unjust
enrichment, and it seeks compensatory damages and punitive
damages under various state consumer protection statutes.

The District Court dismissed the complaint against all defendants
in its entirety on Nov. 19, 2008.

On March 3, 2009, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' post-
judgment motions to vacate this order of dismissal and amend the
complaint.

The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's denial of these
motions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  A
hearing on the plaintiffs' appeal was held on Nov. 3, 2009 and a
decision is pending.

                    State Class Actions

The company has been named as a co-defendant, together with
Composites LLC and two other defendants, in several state class
action complaints that are substantially similar to the complaint
in another purported federal class action.

To the company's knowledge, these complaints have been filed to
date:

     -- on Oct. 1, 2009 in the First Judicial District Court,
        County of Santa Fe, State of New Mexico;

     -- on Oct. 7, 2009 in the Supreme Court of the State of
        New York, County of Westchester;

     -- on Oct. 8, 2009 in the Superior Court, Middlesex County,
        Commonwealth of Massachusetts;

     -- on Oct. 15, 2009 in the Superior Court, Judicial
        District of Middlesex, State of Connecticut; and

     -- on Oct. 30, 2009 in the District Court, Boulder County,
        State of Colorado.

These complaints, which are substantially identical, purport to
assert, among other things, causes of action for unfair and
deceptive trade practices, breach of the duty to warn, breach of
warranty and unjust enrichment, seek compensatory damages for
similarly situated consumers within those states, in estimated
amounts of less than $5 million each.  The attorneys for the
plaintiffs in the state class action complaints, who also
represent the plaintiffs in the federal class action, have
indicated that they may file additional state class action
complaints.

Kadant Inc. -- http://www.kadant.com/-- is a supplier of  
equipment used in the global papermaking and paper recycling
industries. The Company also manufactures granules made from
papermaking byproducts. The Company's operations consist of one
operating segment, Pulp and Papermaking Systems (Papermaking
Systems), and two separate product lines reported in Other
Businesses, which include Fiber-based Products and, until its
sale in April 2007, Casting Products. Its Papermaking Systems
segment develops, manufactures and markets equipment for the
global papermaking and paper recycling industries.


MATCH.COM: Class Action Lawsuit Moved from New York to Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Bounds at the Dallas Business Journal reports that Match.com
LLP has managed to get an East Coast class-action suit moved to
the local area, although the online dating service still must
defend itself against allegations in the litigation that it
"lumps together profiles of current subscribers and canceled
member and displays them as if they are they same," court
documents say.

U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled that McGinn, et
al. v. Match.com L.L.P., Case No. 09-cv-05328 (S.D.N.Y.), filed
on June 9, 2009, should be tried in Dallas rather than New York
because of a "forum selection clause" in the user agreement that
Match.com members agree to when they sign up for the service.
That forum selection clause specified said if a dispute arose,
such case would be tried in Dallas or Collin County, court
records say.

Originally filed in New York, the litigation alleges that the
"vast majority of Match.com members are canceled subscribers, or
have never subscribed at all," court documents say. The suit also
charges that if a Match.com subscriber writes to someone on the
site, the company won't inform the subscriber in the event that
the person they're writing can't read or respond to the e-mail.

Among other things, the suit seeks a court order barring the
company from engaging in "deceptive practices," along with
unspecified damages.

In a statement issued when the suit was filed, the company said
that the lawsuit "is without merit, and we will defend it
vigorously. Match.com is the first and one of the largest global
online communities for singles looking to start meaningful
relationship. We stand behind our product 100%."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norah Hart, Esq.
          TREUHAFT & ZAKARIN, L.L.P.
          1011 Avenue of the Americas, 4th Floor
          New York, NY 10000
          Telephone: (212) 725-6418

IAC/Interactive Corporation and Match.com L.L.P. are represented
by:

          John R. Cuti, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          1633 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 489-8230


MERIX CORP: Consolidated Complaint in Oregon in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action complaint against Merix Corp. is
currently under discovery after the  U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon partially granted the certification motion and
certified a class, according to the company's Form 8-K filing
dated Nov. 12, 2009, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Four purported class action complaints were filed against the
company and certain of its executive officers and directors on
June 17, 2004, June 24, 2004 and July 9, 2004.

The complaints were consolidated in a single action entitled In
re Merix Corporation Securities Litigation, Lead Case No.
CV 04-826-MO, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon.

After the court granted the company's motion to dismiss without
prejudice, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.

That complaint alleged that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making certain inaccurate and misleading
statements in the prospectus used in connection with the January
2004 public offering of approximately $103.4 million of the
company's common stock.

In September 2006, the Court dismissed that complaint with
prejudice.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

In April 2008, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
second amended complaint.

The company sought rehearing which was denied and rehearing en
banc was also denied.

The company obtained a stay of the mandate from the Ninth Circuit
and filed a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court on
Sept. 22, 2008.

On Dec. 15, 2008, the Supreme Court denied the certiorari
petition and the case was remanded back to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon.

On May 15, 2009, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all
investors who purchased in the public offering and who were
damaged thereby.

On Nov. 5, 2009, the court partially granted the certification
motion and certified a class consisting of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock
from an underwriter directly pursuant to the company's Jan. 29,
2004 offering, who held the stock through May 13, 2004, and who
were damaged thereby.

The case is currently in the discovery phase.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.

Merix Corporation -- http://www.merix.com/-- is a global  
manufacturing service provider of printed circuit boards (PCBs)
for original equipment manufacturer (OEM) customers and their
electronic manufacturing service (EMS) providers.  The company's
products include multi-layer rigid PCBs, which are the platforms
used to interconnect microprocessors, integrated circuits and
other components that are essential to the operation of
electronic products and systems.  The company's markets include
automotive, defense and aerospace, communications, computing,
industrial, networking, peripherals, and test end markets.  It
has manufacturing facilities in Huiyang and Huizhou, in the
People's Republic of China.


MERIX CORP: Faces Two Suits Resulting from Viasystems Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Merix Corp. currently faces two putative class action lawsuits
challenging its merger with Viasystems Group, Inc., according to
the company's Form 8-K filing dated Nov. 12, 2009, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The company, its board of directors and Viasystems Group, Inc., a
Delaware corporation are named as defendants in two putative
class action lawsuits brought by alleged shareholders of the
company challenging its proposed merger with Viasystems.

The shareholder actions were both filed in the Circuit Court of
the State of Oregon, County of Multnomah.

The actions are called:

     -- Asbestos Workers Philadelphia Pension Fund v. Merix
        Corporation, et al., filed Oct. 13, 2009,
        Case No. 0910-14399 and

     -- W. Donald Wybert v. Merix Corporation, et al., filed on
        or about Nov. 5, 2009, Case No. 0911-15521.

Both shareholder actions generally allege, among other things,
that each member of the company's board of directors breached
fiduciary duties to the company and its shareholders by
authorizing the sale of the company to Viasystems for
consideration that does not maximize value to shareholders.
The complaints also allege that the company and Viasystems aided
and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by
the members of the company's board of directors.  The shareholder
actions seek equitable relief, including to enjoin the defendants
from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms.

Merix Corporation -- http://www.merix.com/-- is a global  
manufacturing service provider of printed circuit boards (PCBs)
for original equipment manufacturer (OEM) customers and their
electronic manufacturing service (EMS) providers.  The company's
products include multi-layer rigid PCBs, which are the platforms
used to interconnect microprocessors, integrated circuits and
other components that are essential to the operation of
electronic products and systems.  The company's markets include
automotive, defense and aerospace, communications, computing,
industrial, networking, peripherals, and test end markets.  It
has manufacturing facilities in Huiyang and Huizhou, in the
People's Republic of China.


OKLAHOMA: 10th Cir. Hears Debate About Foster Care Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Boczkiewicz at The Oklahoman reports that a critic of
Oklahoma's foster child care system contends its reform will not
be possible if an appeals court grants the state's request to
decertify a class-action lawsuit against top child welfare
officials.

"You can't get system-wide relief (unless a pending lawsuit
applies to all 10,000 foster care children)," children's advocate
Marcia Lowry said Thursday after arguing the case at the 10th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ms. Lowry is an attorney for the national organization Children's
Rights, based in New York City, which is leading the lawsuit
against officials of the Oklahoma Commission for Human Services.

The officials want the Denver-based court to remove class-action
status for the lawsuit, which seeks an overhaul of the system,
including increased staff.

The lawsuit alleges the system operated by the Department of
Human Services is so deficient it puts thousands of children at
risk, including risk of death and injury.

State officials argue the lawsuit should be limited to the six
children who are named as plaintiffs.

At issue is whether U. S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell in
Tulsa erred in certifying the lawsuit as a class action on behalf
of all the children in the system. The officials claim Frizzell
erred in concluding the case meets strict legal standards
required for judges to grant class-action status to lawsuits.

The officials have contended in court filings the strategy of the
plaintiffs' attorneys is to force the state into a settlement at
a staggering cost to taxpayers.

"Clearly, the litigation strategy of Children's Rights is to
prosecute a class action whose defense becomes financially and
logistically burdensome (that it) inevitably leads to the entry
of a consent decree," the officials said.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court, as typical, did not
indicate when it will decide the state's challenge, nor indicate
how the judges would rule, Mr. Boczkiewicz adds.  


SEOUL TRADING: All Kinds of Fraud Alleged at Grocery Chain
----------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that an
international grocery chain repackaged and sold expired food,
used nail polish remover to erase expiration dates, sold food
contaminated by mouse feces, dried food in parking lots in
violation of health codes, and labeled foreign food as "made in
the USA" a class action claims in King County Court.

The six named plaintiff-customers say it was "common practice"
for H Mart stores to return expired food to distributor Seoul
Trading, where the expiration dates were removed, new dates were
stamped, and the "reprocessed" old products were sent back to the
stores.

The plaintiffs say numerous customers became sick after eating
"expired foods that were moldy, spoiled, and unfit for human
consumption."

H Mart specializes in imported Asian and Hispanic foods and has
stores in 13 states and Canada.

Operators of two local H-Marts, Ah Reum Mart and Han Ah Reum
Market, are also named as defendants, in addition to H Mart
Companies and Seoul Trading.

The class seeks restitution, an injunction, costs and damages for
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty and
consumer law violations.

A copy of the Complaint in Lim, et al. v. Seoul Trading, Inc., et
al., Case No. 09-2-41736-9 KNT (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/20/AsianGrocery.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Karl Y. Park, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KARL PARK
          1010 South 336th St., Suite 320
          Federal Way, WA 98003
          Telephone: 253-815-1400


U.S. HOME: $1.5 Mil. Settlement in Calif. Labor Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A Stipulation and Settlement Agreement in connection with the
class action styled Kenneth John Lodge, et al. vs. U.S. Home
Systems, Inc. and U.S. Remodelers, Inc., Case No. CV07-05409
CAS, is pending approval by the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

On July 17, 2009, the company and its wholly owned subsidiary,
U.S. Remodelers entered into a Settlement Agreement with
Plaintiffs Kenneth John Lodge, Judson Lertzman, Barbara Galaro
and Michael Hopkins, and their counsel, on behalf of themselves
and each of the other class members in settlement of the class
action lawsuit pending against the company in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.

The settlement, which is subject to, among other things,
preliminary and final Court approval, will resolve all the
claims in the Lawsuit.  Without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing of any kind, the company has agreed to the payment of
$1.5 million to settle the Lawsuit plus up to $10,000 to pay
costs associated with the administration of the settlement.  A
copy of the Settlement Agreement is available at
http://tinyurl.com/lo4cpnfor free.    

The original complaint in this Lawsuit was filed by Plaintiffs
(former employees of the company) on July 3, 2007 in the Los
Angeles County Supreme Court.  The complaint was subsequently
amended on Aug. 3, 2007 and was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.  A second amended
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court on Feb. 20, 2009.  

The Plaintiffs allege that the company failed to reimburse its
California employees for certain expenses they incurred during
their employment with the company, violated certain provisions
of the California Business and Professions Code (prohibiting
unfair business acts or practices) and failed to pay wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

In the Lawsuit Plaintiffs seek damages, wages owed, injunctive
relief, costs, attorney fees, punitive damages, interest, and
penalties.

The Plaintiffs asserted the claims on their behalf and a class
of all others similarly situated. The parties have conducted a
significant amount of motion practice during the prosecution of
the Lawsuit, including the litigation over a motion to dismiss,
motion to strike and multiple discovery motions. The parties
have conducted extensive discovery and investigations of facts
and law and have engaged in numerous personal and telephone
conferences.

The parties have concluded that based on the disputed factual
and legal issues involved in the Lawsuit and the benefits to be
received by the parties pursuant to the settlement of the
Lawsuit, including avoiding incurring any further expenses and
attorney fees, it is in the best interest of Plaintiffs, class
members and the Company to settle the Lawsuit.

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, in order to facilitate the settlement, the
company, solely for the purposes of the settlement, has consented
to the conditional certification of the class, which are defined
as any current or former employee of the company who worked in
California during the period from July 3, 2003, up to and
including the preliminary Court approval date (class period), and
who is a member of any of two subclasses, the commission subclass
and the expense subclass.

U.S. Home Systems, Inc. -- http://www.ushomesystems.com/-- is
engaged in the specialty product home improvement business.  In
its home improvement business, the company manufactures or
procures, designs, sells and installs custom kitchen and
bathroom cabinet refacing products and organizational storage
systems for closets and garages.  The company manufactures
certain of its kitchen and bath cabinet refacing products at the
Charles City, Virginia facility.


U.S. HOMES: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the
ruling that the Second Amended Complaint against The Home Depot,
Inc., be dismissed for failure to state a claim, 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.

In June 2007, a class action, uncertified, was filed by a home
improvement customer of the The Home Depot against The Home
Depot, Inc., Expo Designs Center, et al. in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, alleging
certain unfair business acts and practices, violations of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and breach of contract.

The case was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

The U.S. District Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
Original Complaint.

Plaintiffs, who are comprised of two home improvement customers
of the company and The Home Depot, filed their First Amended
Complaint in October 2007, which included the Company as a
defendant.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed their Second Amended Complaint
against Defendants on Dec. 21, 2007, which contained basically
the same allegations as the Original and First Amended
Complaints.

Plaintiffs assert the claims on their behalf and a class of all
others similarly situated.  Relief sought in the Second Amended
Complaint included unspecified damages, and other equitable
relief and attorney fees.

On April 9, 2008, the U.S. District Court granted Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint and
ordered Plaintiffs' Complaint dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

On Oct. 20, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the U.S. District Court's ruling that Plaintiffs Second
Amended Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

U.S. Home Systems, Inc. -- http://www.ushomesystems.com/-- is
engaged in the specialty product home improvement business.  In
its home improvement business, the company manufactures or
procures, designs, sells and installs custom kitchen and
bathroom cabinet refacing products and organizational storage
systems for closets and garages.  The company manufactures
certain of its kitchen and bath cabinet refacing products at the
Charles City, Virginia facility.


U.S. HOMES: Wants Ex-Employee Suit Removed to Northern Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Home Systems, Inc., wants the suit filed against a former
employee removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, 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.

In February 2009 a class action, as yet uncertified, was filed
against the company in the Superior Court of California for the
County of Alameda, alleging certain violations of the California
Labor Code, California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order
16-2001 and California Business and Professions Code.

This action was filed by a former employee.

The Plaintiff asserts the claims on his behalf and a class of all
others similarly situated. Relief sought in the complaint
includes unspecified damages, injunctive and equitable relief,
punitive damages, penalties (in addition to wages owed) and
attorney fees.

The company has filed a Notice of Removal with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California to remove this
lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

U.S. Home Systems, Inc. -- http://www.ushomesystems.com/-- is
engaged in the specialty product home improvement business.  In
its home improvement business, the company manufactures or
procures, designs, sells and installs custom kitchen and
bathroom cabinet refacing products and organizational storage
systems for closets and garages.  The company manufactures
certain of its kitchen and bath cabinet refacing products at the
Charles City, Virginia facility.


U.S. HOMES: FLSA Violations Suit Remains Pending in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Home Systems, Inc., continues to defend a a class/collective
action alleging certain violations of Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law,

This action was filed by an employee of the company.

The Plaintiff asserts claims on his behalf and as a collective
action on behalf of all individuals who were employed by the
Company as installers in the United States, with the exception of
California, since Feb. 24, 2006 and as a class action, as yet
uncertified, on behalf of all individuals who were employed by
the company as installers in the State of New Jersey since
Feb. 24, 2007.

Relief sought in the complaint includes injunctive and equitable
relief, overtime wages, liquidated damages and penalties and
attorneys fees.

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.

U.S. Home Systems, Inc. -- http://www.ushomesystems.com/-- is
engaged in the specialty product home improvement business.  In
its home improvement business, the company manufactures or
procures, designs, sells and installs custom kitchen and
bathroom cabinet refacing products and organizational storage
systems for closets and garages.  The company manufactures
certain of its kitchen and bath cabinet refacing products at the
Charles City, Virginia facility.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CVS CAREMARK: Shareholder Complaint Filed in D. R.I.
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that CVS Caremark inflated its
share price through false and misleading statements, a class
action claims in Providence, R.I., Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Medoff v. CVS Caremark Corporation, et
al., Case No. 09-cv-00554 (D. R.I.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/20/SCACVS.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -  

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          Robert P. Frutkin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C.
          John Wanamaker Building, Suite 450
          100 Penn Square East
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: 215-561-3600

               - and -  

          Barry J. Kusinitz, Esq.
          155 South Main Street, Suite 405
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: 401-831-4200


SUNPOWER CORP: Two Shareholder Complaint Filed in N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that SunPower Corp. inflated its
share price through false and misleading statements, and
PriceWaterhouseCoopers helped, shareholders say in San Francisco
Federal Court.

The cases are:

    -- Plichta v. SunPower Corporation, et al., Case No.
       09-cv-05473 (N.D. Calif.) (Breyer, J.), filed by:

          Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq.
          Darren Jay Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          655 W. Broadway, #1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-231-1058

               - and -  

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-288-4545

     -- Cao v. SunPower Corporation, et al., Case No.
        09-cv-05488 (N.D. Calif.) (Zimmerman, J.), filed by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292

               - and -  

          Peter E. Borkon, Esq.
          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000

               - and -  

          Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 455-1400

               - and -   

          Kim Elaine Miller, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI LLC
          12 East 41st Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 696-3730


THE PARK AVENUE: Shareholder Complaint Filed in N.Y. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Shareholders accuse The Park
Avenue of breach of fiduciary duties, usurpation of corporate
opportunities and corporate waste, in New York County Court.


ZALE CORP: Shareholder Complaint Filed in N.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Zale inflated its share
price by failing to follow generally accepted accounting
principles, shareholders say in Dallas Federal Court.

The case is Lawyer v. Zale Corporation, Case No. 09-cv-02218
(N.D. Tex.) (Boyle, J.), filed by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP LLP
          3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: 214-744-3000

                            *********

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  * * *