CAR_Public/091130.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, November 30, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 236
  
                            Headlines

ALLURA IMPORTS: Recalls 3,700 Girl's Hooded Sweatshirts
ATMEL CORP: Inks Stipulation to Settle Micro Shareholder Suit
BAYER HEALTHCARE: "Kraus" Yaz Laswuit Filed in Philadelphia Ct.
CHARLES SCHWAB: YieldPlus Investor Opt-Out Deadline is Dec. 28
DISH DBS: Plaintiffs Appeal Court's Dismissal of Antitrust Suit

DISH DBS: Lawsuits by Retailers Remain Ongoing in Colorado
EXXONMOBILE: Tex. Supreme Court Rejects Gasoline Dealer Class
GATEWAY INC: C.D. Calif. Lawsuit Complains About LCD Monitors
GEOTECH ENGINEERING: Sued in Ohio for Foundation Repair Problems
GVI SECURITY: Faces Suit in Delaware Over GenNx360 Merger Plans

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Computer Lock-Up Complaint Filed in C.D. Calif.
KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Chinese Drywall Claim Deadline is Wednesday
LAND O'LAKES: Denies Claims in Consolidated Amended Suits in Pa.
LG PHILIPS: Chungwhwa Settles & Cooperates with Plaintiffs
MDL 1897: Mattel Agrees to Refunds for Lead-Containing Toys

MICHAEL FOODS: Dismissal Plea for Two Suits Still Pending
NOVASTAR FIN'L: Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Missouri Suit
NOVASTAR FIN'L: Continues to Defend Claims in New York Lawsuit
NOVASTAR FIN'L: Wants N.J. Carpenters' Health Fund Suit Dismissed
NOVASTAR FIN'L: Appeal of 401(k) Plan Suit Certification Pending

POWERCOR: Australian Bushfire Victims Sue Electric Company
PRARIE SOUTH: Canadian School District Faces Class Action Lawsuit
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Auto Policyholders Sue Insurer in Calif.
SILICON STORAGE: Suit Challenges Technology Resource Transaction
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Court Approves Agreement Dismissing Suit

SYSTEMAX INC: Tully's Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit
TALON INTERNATIONAL: Final Fairness Hearing Set for December 10
TEAM WORK TRADING: Recalls 1,500 More Lead-Containing Pendants
UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Defends Suit Over Filter Sales in Calif.
UNITED COMPONENTS: Suit on Filter Sales in Ontario Still Pending

UNITED COMPONENTS: Lawsuits Over Filter Sales Pending in Quebec
UNITED COMPONENTS: Status Conference in Unit's Suit Set for Jan.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NORTHWEST PIPE: Pomerantz Filed Shareholder Suit in W.D. Wash.
PROVIDENT ENERGY: Keller Rohrback Files Shareholder Suit in Idaho
SUNPOWER CORP: Howard G. Smith Files Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif.
VERASUN ENERGY: Dyer & Berens Files Shareholder Suit in S.D.N.Y.

                            *********

ALLURA IMPORTS: Recalls 3,700 Girl's Hooded Sweatshirts
-------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
in cooperation with Allura Imports Inc., of New York, N.Y.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 3,700 Girl's Hooded
Sweatshirts.  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 young children.  In February 1996,
CPSC issued guidelines 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 girl's velour hooded sweatshirts with a zip
front. The sweatshirts were sold as a part of a 2-piece set.
"Major Diva" is printed on the front of the sweatshirts. The tag
on the inside of the sweatshirts reads, "2b REAL." The
sweatshirts were sold in hot pink, light pink, ivory and khaki,
and in sizes 4, 5/6 and 6X.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10050.html

The recalled garments were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at: Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide from
October 2008 through July 2009 for about $11.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard, or return the garments to
either the place of purchase or to Allura Imports for a full
refund.  For additional information, contact Allura Imports at
(800) 695-4510 between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday.  Consumers can also visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/


ATMEL CORP: Inks Stipulation to Settle Micro Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Atmel Corporation, on Nov. 17, 2009, disclosed that it has
entered a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and
Release to settle previously disclosed litigation regarding
Atmel's response to a subsequently-withdrawn acquisition proposal
by Microchip Technology Inc. and ON Semiconductor Corporation,
including Atmel's adoption of an amendment to its Amended and
Restated Preferred Shares Rights Agreement, dated as of Oct. 18,
1999.

The terms of the Stipulation are based on the terms of an
agreement-in-principle set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding
dated as of Sept. 14, 2009, which Atmel announced in Sept. 18,
2009.

The Stipulation provides, on behalf of a non-opt out class
consisting of all record holders and beneficial owners of Atmel
common stock at any time during the period from Oct. 2, 2008,
through and including Nov. 6, 2009, for the full settlement and
release of all claims by or against Atmel and all of the
defendants related to the allegations and matters set forth in
three stockholder class actions consolidated under the caption In
re Atmel Corporation Shareholders Litigation filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware, and a class and derivative
action captioned Zucker v. Laub, et. al., filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California.

The suit pending before the Court alleged, among other things,
that the definition of "Beneficial Ownership" and "Derivatives
Contract" in the Rights Agreement (as amended) were vague and
unenforceable under Delaware law.

The settlement set forth in the Stipulation is subject to and
conditioned upon obtaining final approval by the Court.

Under the Stipulation, Atmel agreed that if, prior to Sept. 14,
2012, Atmel adopts a new stockholder rights plan that includes a
"Derivative Contract" within the definition of "Beneficial
Ownership" (a "New Derivative Rights Plan"), Atmel will clarify
that:

     (i) the term "Derivatives Contract" excludes interests in
         broad-based index options, broad-based index futures,
         and broad-based publicly traded market baskets of stock
         approved for trading by the appropriate federal
         governmental authority; and

    (ii) to qualify as or constitute a "Derivatives Contract," a
         contractual arrangement must include or reference a
         number of "Notional Common Shares."

On Sept. 14, 2009, Atmel's Board of Directors passed a resolution
interpreting Section 1(d)(iv) of the Rights Agreement (which
defines the term "Beneficial Ownership") consistent with the
foregoing.

In the Stipulation, Atmel also agreed that if, prior to Sept. 14,
2012, Atmel adopts a New Derivative Rights Plan with an
expiration date beyond the date of Atmel's 2010 annual meeting of
stockholders, then Atmel will include a proposal for a
stockholder advisory vote on the provision including Derivative
Contracts in the definition of Beneficial Ownership in its proxy
statement for the first annual meeting occurring more than 45
days after the date of such action.

Under the terms of the Stipulation, the stockholder vote will not
be binding on Atmel or the Board, will not be deemed to be a
condition to the effectiveness of the New Derivative Rights Plan,
and will not be construed as overruling a decision by the Board,
nor to create or imply any additional fiduciary duty by the
Board.

Atmel agreed to the same advisory vote provision if it extended
the expiration date of the Rights Agreement beyond the date of
the Company's 2010 annual meeting of stockholders, but the Rights
Agreement expired on October 15, 2009, making that provision no
longer operative.

As part of the settlement, Atmel also has agreed not to oppose
plaintiffs' attorneys' application to the Court for an award of
fees and expenses up to a limit of $950,000.  Pursuant to its
pre-existing obligations to indemnify the Board, Atmel shall pay
such an award as the Court may approve, up to $950,000.

Atmel and the Board entered into the Stipulation without
admitting or conceding any merit to any allegation made in the
Shareholder Actions solely to eliminate the burden, risk and
expense of further litigation.  Except as described above, the
Stipulation provides for no constraint on the ability of Atmel
and/or the Board to respond to any proposed acquisition or other
transaction or to adopt or amend a stockholder rights plan in
accordance with applicable Delaware law.

The Court has scheduled a hearing on Jan. 7, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.,
to be held at the Court of Chancery, 34 The Circle, Georgetown,
Delaware 19947, for the purpose of, among other things:

     (i) determining whether the settlement set forth in the
         Stipulation should be approved by the Court as fair,
         reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the
         Settlement Class, and

    (ii) hearing and determining any objections to the
         settlement or the application of plaintiffs' attorneys'
         for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

Any shareholder desiring further information about the settlement
or wishing to be heard at the Court hearing, should consult the
Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Class Action
Determination, Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Settlement
Hearing, and Right to Appear, which is available on Atmel's
website.

Atmel Corp. -- http://www.atmel.com/-- designs, develops,  
manufactures, and sells a range of integrated circuits products,
including microcontrollers, advanced logic, mixed-signal,
nonvolatile memory and radio frequency components.


BAYER HEALTHCARE: "Kraus" Yaz Laswuit Filed in Philadelphia Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy R. Fleishman of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announced that Dana Kraus, on
behalf of her sixteen-year old daughter, Katie Kraus, filed a
personal injury lawsuit against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceutical
Corporation for severe and lasting injuries caused by Bayer's
prescription drug Yaz.  The lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Common Pleas for Philadelphia County.

"While prescribed Yaz, my daughter developed several pulmonary
emboli, which obstructed her pulmonary artery and caused her to
suffer cardiac arrest.  My baby was dead for almost three
minutes," stated Dana Kraus.  "She was in excellent health prior
to taking Yaz.  This was a terrifying experience.  We almost lost
her.  We were so lucky.  The doctors at Children's Hospital of
Pittsburgh were able to save her life."  Pulmonary emboli are
blood clots in the lungs that can lead to abnormally low blood
pressure and sudden death.

"As alleged in the Complaint, Yaz is a dangerous prescription
drug sold without adequate warnings about the risks of serious
and fatal injuries," stated attorney Wendy R. Fleishman.  "Bayer
failed to warn doctors and patients that Yaz poses a greater risk
of serious side effects than previous generations of oral
contraceptives."

"The FDA's adverse event database for Yaz reveals many serious
adverse events associated with use of the drug, including many
deaths, strokes, heart attacks, blood clots gallbladder and
kidney disease in young and healthy women" said attorney David H.
Rosenberg of the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, law firm of Handler
Henning & Rosenberg, LLP.  Attorney Fleishman added, "Bayer must
take legal responsibility for injuries Yaz has inflicted on young
women and teenagers across America."    

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.

About Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP:

Founded in 1972, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is an
over-fifty-attorney law firm with offices in San Francisco, New
York and Nashville.  For the last seven consecutive years, the
National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the
top plaintiffs' law firms in America.
For our personal injury cases, we bring a team of experienced
lawyers.  In addition, we have on staff multiple nurses, legal
assistants, scientific analysts and case clerks to assist the
attorneys.

About Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP:

Since 1922 the personal injury attorneys at Handler, Henning &
Rosenberg, LLP have been helping seriously injured people in
Pennsylvania.  For over 87 years, Handler, Henning & Rosenberg,
LLP has been representing injured people against powerful
insurance companies and corporations.  

Handler, Henning & Rosenberg represents many plaintiffs
throughout the state of Pennsylvania with similar cases against
Bayer involving the birth control drugs Yaz and Yasmin.  For more
information please visit the Firm's Web site at:

     www.hhrlaw.com/pages/prod_yaz_yasmin_side_effects.html  


CHARLES SCHWAB: YieldPlus Investor Opt-Out Deadline is Dec. 28
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A., representing
numerous aggrieved investors throughout the nation, advises all
Charles Schwab (Nasdaq: SCHW) YieldPlus Fund investors who are
class members in In Re Schwab Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 08-cv-01510 (N.D. Calif.) (Alsup, J.), that any request for
exclusion from the Class Action must be received by the claims
administrator by December 28, 2009.  

The Class Action was filed on behalf of investors who purchased
shares in the Schwab YieldPlus Fund. The YieldPlus Fund sold two
classes of shares: Investor Shares (Nasdaq: SWYPX) and Select
Shares ( SWYSX).

Presently, K&T represents many investors from across the nation
who purchased shares of the YieldPlus Fund from Charles Schwab,
in securities arbitration claims before the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority ("FINRA").  These investors chose to pursue
their claims individually rather than participate in the class
action because they suffered large losses.  K&T reminds investors
of the benefits of filing an individual securities arbitration
claim, as opposed to participating in a class action lawsuit.  By
participating in a class action lawsuit, an investor may only
recover a nominal amount.  However, if one has experienced
significant losses in the YieldPlus Fund, it may be more
beneficial for them to file an individual securities arbitration
claim.  In 2003, K&T conducted a detailed study of securities
arbitration versus class action.  The study concluded that
investors who file a securities arbitration claim traditionally
obtain an overall higher rate of recovery as opposed to
participating in a class action lawsuit.  To view the full
results of the comparison, please visit K&T's Web site at:

     http://www.nasd-law.com/documents/classvr.pdf

Retail and institutional investors who purchased shares of the
YieldPlus Fund from Charles Schwab and sustained significant
losses can contact K&T to explore their legal rights and options.
The attorneys at K&T are dedicated to pursuing claims on behalf
of investors who have suffered investment losses. K&T, an
experienced, qualified and nationally recognized securities
litigation law firm, practices exclusively in the field of
securities arbitration and litigation. It continues its
representation of investors throughout the world in securities
arbitration and litigation matters against major Wall Street
brokerage firms.

If you wish to discuss this announcement or have investment
losses of $100,000 or more in Schwab's YieldPlus Fund, please
contact:

          Steven D. Toskes, Esq.
          Jahan K. Manasseh, Esq.
          Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
          Telephone: 888-997-9956
          http://www.nasd-law.com/


DISH DBS: Plaintiffs Appeal Court's Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in an antitrust action against DISH DBS Corp. have
appealed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granting the defendants' motion to dismiss
the case with prejudice, according to the company's Nov. 13,
2009, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Sept. 21, 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite
subscribers filed an antitrust action against the company in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The suit also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision,
Cox, Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC
Universal, Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group, and Walt Disney
Company.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to
bundled channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the
ability to purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis.

On Oct. 16, 2009, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss with prejudice.

The plaintiffs have appealed.

DISH DBS Corp. (formerly known as EchoStar DBS Corp.), a holding
company and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network
Corporation, provides direct broadcast satellite services to
subscribers through its Dish Network segment.  The Company is
based in Englewood, Colorado.


DISH DBS: Lawsuits by Retailers Remain Ongoing in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS Corp. continues to defend several class-action lawsuits
filed by retailers in Colorado state and federal courts,
according to the company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filed with
the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

During 2000, lawsuits were filed by retailers in Colorado state
and federal courts attempting to certify nationwide classes on
behalf of certain of the company's retailers.

The plaintiffs are requesting the Courts declare certain
provisions of, and changes to, alleged agreements between the
company and the retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to
award damages for lost incentives and payments, charge backs,
and other compensation.  The company has asserted a variety of
counterclaims.

The federal court action has been stayed during the pendency of
the state court action.

The company has filed a motion for summary judgment on all
counts and against all plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs filed a
motion for additional time to conduct discovery to enable them
to respond to the company's motion.  The state court granted
limited discovery, which ended during 2004.  The plaintiffs
claimed the company did not provide adequate disclosure during
the discovery process.  The state court agreed, and denied the
company's motion for summary judgment as a result.

In April 2008, the state court granted plaintiff's class
certification motion and in January 2009, the state court
entered an order excluding certain evidence that the company can
present at trial based on the prior discovery issues.  The state
court also denied plaintiffs' request to dismiss the company's
counterclaims.

In April 2008, the state court granted plaintiff's class
certification motion and in January 2009, the state court entered
an order excluding certain evidence that we can present at trial
based on the prior discovery issues. The state court also denied
plaintiffs' request to dismiss our counterclaims.

In May 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment based
on new allegations of discovery misconduct.

DISH DBS Corp. (formerly known as EchoStar DBS Corp.), a holding
company and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network
Corporation, provides direct broadcast satellite services to
subscribers through its Dish Network segment.  The Company is
based in Englewood, Colorado.


EXXONMOBILE: Tex. Supreme Court Rejects Gasoline Dealer Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris at The Southeast Texas Record reports that gasoline
dealers who claim ExxonMobil tricked them into paying for their
own rebates can't pursue a class action, the Supreme Court of
Texas decided on Nov. 20.

"The dealers here point to nothing in the contracts that
prohibited Exxon from taking rebate costs into account in setting
prices," the justices wrote, reversing 13th District appeals
judges in Corpus Christi, who affirmed a class certification
order from Nueces County Court of Law Judge James Klager.

Dealers Dan Gill, Howard Granby and Patrick Morrow originally
sued on behalf of a national class.  They complained that
ExxonMobil promised economic benefits but secretly recouped them
by factoring them into prices.  They alleged breach of agreement,
breach of promise and breach of good faith.  

ExxonMobil denied that it fully recouped its costs or hid facts
from dealers.  The oil company pleaded that the dealers alleged
fraud, not breach of contract.

The distinction matters because a fraud plaintiff must prove he
relied on a defendant's misconduct while a breach plaintiff
doesn't have to prove reliance.

After the state Supreme Court clamped down on national class
actions in a case that involved Compaq computers, the dealers
limited their claim to Texas. However, their lawyers filed class
action claims for dealers of other states in federal courts.

In Nueces County, Judge Klager certified a Texas class on all
three kinds of breaches.

On appeal, ExxonMobil asked 13th District judges to follow a
Supreme Court decision from 2004 that stopped a class action
against Shell Oil.  

Dealers in that case claimed Shell Oil dishonestly charged prices
that would force them out of business so Shell Oil could own more
stations.  Shell Oil dealers alleged price discrimination under
Texas uniform commercial code, but the Supreme Court held that
they didn't overcome a presumption of good faith.

Requiring sellers to justify every price "would mean that in
every case the seller is going to be in a lawsuit," the Justices
ruled.

The Shell Oil precedent didn't impress appeals judges on the
ExxonMobil case, who distinguished the cases by reasoning that
ExxonMobil dealers asserted specific claims.  Justice Dori Garza
identified "specific promises of economic remuneration for
keeping stores open specified hours and selling specified volumes
of gasoline."  

The Supreme Court replied, "We do not see the distinction."

The justices wrote that claims of Shell Oil dealers were "just as
specific, and certainly as reprehensible, as those asserted by
the dealers in the present case."

They didn't convert the breach claims to fraud claims as
ExxonMobil urged, but they distilled the breach claims to a
simple question.  They asked if ExxonMobil violated commercial
code by failing to disclose that it recouped rebate costs, and
they wrote: "The answer is no."  They wrote, "Thus, it appears
that the dealers' claim lacks merit."  A federal judge in New
York reached the same conclusion last year in litigation from the
other 49 states, the court said.

They wrote that Judge Klager and the 13th District misconstrued
and misapplied the Shell Oil decision, and they directed Judge
Klager to vacate his class certification order.

The justices didn't tell him to deny class certification, instead
advising him to determine the effect of the Shell Oil precedent
on the requirements for certification.

David Gunn represented ExxonMobil, along with Richard Godfrey,
Mark Lillie, Andrew Kassof, Russell Post, John Adcock and Tony
Canales.

David Bright, James Roy, Bob Wright, Walter Thompson Jr., James
White III, Fredric Levin, Troy Rafferty, William Denton, Spencer
Hosie, John McArthur, William Large, William Hoese, Robert
Josefsburg and James McCartt represented the dealers.


GATEWAY INC: C.D. Calif. Lawsuit Complains About LCD Monitors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Gateway's expensive XHD3000
30-inch LCD monitors fail prematurely, a class action claims in
Los Angeles Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Lima v. Gateway, Inc., Case No.
09-cv-01366 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/24/Gateway.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          Tracy H. Tien, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-398-8700

               - and -  

          Mila F. Bartos, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          The Duval Foundry
          1050 30th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: 202-337-8000

               - and -  

          Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Esq.
          Alexis A. Phocas, Esq.
          LITIGATION LAW GROUP
          1801 Clement Avenue, Suite 101
          Alameda, CA 94501
          Telephone: 510-238-9610


GEOTECH ENGINEERING: Sued in Ohio for Foundation Repair Problems
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Geotech Engineering failed
to properly repair foundations and refused to back up their
guarantee or issue refunds, a class action claims in Hamilton
County Court, Cincinnati.

A copy of the Complaint in Kunkel, et al. v. Watts, et al., Case
No. A0911079 (Ohio Common Pleas Ct., Hamilton Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/24/CCAGeotech.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Theodore R. Saker, Jr., Esq.
          SAKER LAW OFFICES
          1374 King Avenue
          Columbus, OH 43212
          Telephone: 614-488-9900


GVI SECURITY: Faces Suit in Delaware Over GenNx360 Merger Plans
---------------------------------------------------------------
GVI Security Solutions, Inc., faces a class action complaint
filed on Nov. 9, 2009, relating to its Agreement and Plan of
Merger with GenNx360 GVI Holding, Inc.

On Nov. 9, 2009, a class action complaint was filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware, by Stephen Haberkorn, as
Trustee of the Haberkorn Family Trust, against the Company and
all of its directors, as well as GenNx360, the Sponsor and their
affiliates.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the vompany's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company's
stockholders in connection with the negotiation and execution of
the Merger Agreement and the Offer.

The complaint seeks an order that the action may be maintained as
a class action, preliminarily and permanently enjoining
defendants from proceeding with and consummating the proposed
transactions, rescinding the proposed transactions in the event
they are consummated, an accounting by the defendants to
plaintiffs for damages sustained by them, and requiring payment
of plaintiff's costs and attorneys' fees.

The company is currently evaluating the complaint, according to
its Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

GVI Security Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.gviss.com/--  
incorporated in August 1996, through its subsidiaries, provides
video surveillance and products for a variety of applications and
for use in markets including educational institutions, retail
stores and warehouses, gaming establishments, theme parks, public
works projects, bank branches and offices, and many other
homeland security applications.  GVI's product line includes
cameras designed for specific applications, recording systems,
displays, management software and other necessary ancillary
products.  The company's customers include distributors and
system integrators that specialize in the supply and distribution
of video surveillance and security products and services, such as
access control and intrusion detection.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Computer Lock-Up Complaint Filed in C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Hewlett-Packard HP Pavilion
Elite Desktop PCs, e9000 Series and m9600t Series computers
freeze and lock up too often, a class action claims in Los
Angeles Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Johanning, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard
Company, Case No. 09-cv-08609 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/24/HP.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Patrick DeBlase, Esq.
          KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP
          8648 Wilshire Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: 310-854-4444

               - and -  

          Oren Giskan, Esq.
          Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
          GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON & STEWART LLP
          11 Braodway, Suite 2150
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-847-8315

               - and -  

          Michael Boni, Esq.
          BONI & ZACK LLC
          15 St. Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004     
          Telephone: 610-822-0200

               - and -

          Johathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: 215-553-7980


KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Chinese Drywall Claim Deadline is Wednesday
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chrissie Cole at InjuryBoard.com reminds readers that the
deadline for homeowners to join a class-action lawsuit against a
manufacturer believed to be a source of defective Chinese drywall
is just two days from today.

To participate in the lawsuit against Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin
Co., homeowners must sign up by December 2.  In doing so,
homeowners must show proof, including a photo or sample that
clearly labels the defective drywall.

The class-action case is scheduled in federal court in Louisiana
on January 25.

Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin (KPT) is a Chinese subsidiary of a
German company which allegedly imported much of the contaminated
drywall into the United States between 2004 and 2006.

The defective drywall emits a sulfuric smell which has been
linked to health problems and can cause corrosion to copper and
other metals.

Problem drywall has been found in 32 states and the District of
Columbia, with most cases coming from Florida and Louisiana. Some
4,000 to 7,000 Louisiana homes are believed to contain Chinese
drywall and collectively face $3 billion in repairs, according to
insurance industry and government estimates.

New Report

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) released a new
report that finds a 'strong association' between the chemicals in
Chinese drywall and the corrosion of pipes and wires, a
conclusion that supports complaints made by thousands of
homeowners.

This is the second report on the potentially defective building
materials. The report also suggests a "possible" association
between health problems reported by homeowners and higher-than-
normal levels of hydrogen sulfide gas emitted from the wallboard
along with formaldehyde, which is commonly found in new homes.
The first report was inconclusive and stopped short of linking
the drywall to health problems.

While it is too soon to entertain specifics of any financial
assistance to homeowners, CPSC said it can now proceed with
additional studies to identify effective remediation of the
problem and potential assistance from the federal government.


LAND O'LAKES: Denies Claims in Consolidated Amended Suits in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Land O'Lakes, Inc., MoArk, LLC, and Norco Ranch, Inc., continue
to deny the allegations in the consolidated amended class action
complaints pending in the District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

Between September 2008 and January 2009, a total of twenty-two
related class action lawsuits were filed against a number of
producers of eggs and egg products in three different
jurisdictions alleging violations of antitrust laws.

MoArk was named as a defendant in twenty-one of the cases.  

Norco was named as a defendant in thirteen of the cases.

The company was named as a defendant in seven cases.

The cases have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and two
separate consolidated amended class action complaints have been
filed, which supersede the earlier filed complaints:

     -- one on behalf of those persons who purchased eggs or egg
        products directly from defendants, and

     -- the second on behalf of "indirect" purchasers (i.e.
        persons who purchased eggs or egg products from
        defendants' customers).

The consolidated amended complaints allege concerted action by
producers of shell eggs to restrict output and thereby increase
the price of shell eggs and egg products.

The Plaintiffs in these suits seek unspecified damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of all purchasers of eggs and egg
products, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 13, 2009,
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Land O'Lakes, Inc. -- http://www.landolakesinc.com/-- is a dairy  
co-op in the U.S.  It provides its members with wholesale
fertilizer and crop protection products, seed, and animal feed.  
Its oldest and best known product, LAND O' LAKES butter, is the
top butter brand in the US.  Land O'Lakes also produces packaged
milk, margarine, sour cream, and cheese.  The co-op's animal-feed
division, Land O'Lakes Purina Feed, is a leading animal and pet
food maker.


LG PHILIPS: Chungwhwa Settles & Cooperates with Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer at the Financial Post reports that class action
plaintiffs' counsel in the U.S. continue to adopt criminal
prosecutors' tactics by settling with certain defendants and then
having the settled parties co-operate with plaintiffs' counsel.
Canadian counsel are buying into and taking advantage of the
practice.  That's evident, Mr. Melnitzer says, from the Nov. 23
ruling of Justice Wofram Tausendfreund in Fanshawe College of
Applied Arts and Technology v. LG Philips LCD Co. Ltd., a class
action that is a "copycat" to a similar U.S. proceeding.

The price-fixing case involves a host of LCD panel, TV and
computer manufacturers.  One of the defendants, Chungwhwa Picture
Tubes, Ltd., settled the U.S. case. Part of the settlement
involved Chungwhwa's agreement to co-operate with the plaintiffs.
Subsequently, Chungwhwa provided documents indicating that the
defendants held meetings at which they agreed to certain price-
fixing targets.

The lawyers who brought the Canadian action:

          Charles M. Wright, Esq.
          Andrea DeKay, Esq.
          Siskind Cromarty Ivey & Dowler
          680 Waterloo Street
          P.O. Box 2520
          London, Ontario N6A 3V8
          CANADA

sought to rely on the documents, which were attached to an
affidavit from Chungwhwa's U.S. counsel, Gibson, Dunn and
Crutcher LLP.  The defendants objected, but Mr. Justice
Tausendfreund ruled that the evidence was admissible on a
certification motion despite the fact that it was hearsay because
it complied with the Rules of Civil Procedure.


MDL 1897: Mattel Agrees to Refunds for Lead-Containing Toys
-----------------------------------------------------------
If in 2007 or earlier you or your child purchased or received as
a gift a new Mattel or Fisher-Price toy, you may be entitled to a
payment from a class action settlement in In re Mattel, Inc., Toy
Lead Paint Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1897; Master
Docket No. 07-ml-01897 (C.D. Calif.).  

The Settlement provides refunds to anyone who purchased or
received as a gift new Mattel or Fisher-Price toys that were
recalled or withdrawn from market in 2006 and 2007, due to lead,
lead paint, or magnets that could become loose. Parents and
guardians who had their child's lead level tested within 6 weeks
after the Recall announcements of the Recalled Toy(s) to which
their child was exposed may also receive reimbursement of their
out-of-pocket costs for one test per child.

You qualify as a Class Member if you purchased or acquired
(including by gift) a new "Recalled Toy" for or on behalf of
yourself or a minor child over whom you have custody or control
as a parent or guardian, or to be given as a gift to another
person; or if you are a parent or guardian of a minor child who
purchased or acquired (including by gift) a new "Recalled Toy."  
A "Recalled Toy" means a product made by or for Mattel, Inc., and
its subsidiaries, including Fisher-Price, that was subject to
Mattel's November 21, 2006, August 2, 2007, August 14, 2007,
September 4, 2007, or October 25, 2007 recalls, as well as
certain toy blood pressure monitor cuffs withdrawn from sale.

If you are a Class Member, your legal rights are affected whether
you act or don't act.  Read the Notice posted at:

     https://www.mattelsettlement.com/Prod/Content/PDF/exC.pdf

For more information, visit http://www.mattelsettlement.com/or  
contact the Claims Administrator by calling 1-888-955-2715, or by
writing to:

          In re Mattel, Inc., Toy Lead Products Liability Lit.
          c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
          P.O. Box 808054
          Petaluma, CA 94975-8054

Co-Lead Counsel to the Plaintiff class are:

          John J. Stoia, Jr., Esq.
          Rachel L. Jensen, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101

               - and -  

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLC
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 10036

Mattel is represented by:

          Hugh R. Whiting, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          North Point
          901 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114

               - and -  

          Thomas E. Fennell, Esq.
          Michael L. Rice, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          2727 North Harwood Street
          Dallas, TX 75201-1515

Other lawyers involved in this MDL proceeding are:

          Gilbert Scott Bagnell, Esq.
          BAGNELL AND EASON
          PO Box 11852
          Columbia, SC 29211

               - and -  

          Frank Baliant, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALIANT PC
          2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012

               - and -  

          Matthew C. Branic, Esq.
          KRIEG DEVAULT LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 2800
          Indianapolis, IN 46204

               - and -  

          Robert H. Brunson, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH
          PO Box 1806
          Charleston, SC 29402

               - and -  

          Michael G. Crow, Esq.
          CROW LAW FIRM LLC
          1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1175
          New Orleans, LA 70163

               - and -  

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN AND ROBBINS
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432-4809

               - and -  

          John Gressette Felder, Jr., Esq.
          MCGOWAN HOOD & FELDER
          1517 Hampton Street
          Columbia, SC 29201-2924

               - and -  

          Burton H. Finkelstein, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON & LOUGHRAN
          Duvall Foundry
          1050 30th St. NW
          Washington, DC 20007

               - and -  

          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Fl.
          New York, NY 10022

               - and -  

          Andrew C. Friedman, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN AND BALINT
          2901 N Central Avenue, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012

               - and -  

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          PAUL J GELLER LAW OFFICES
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432

               - and -  

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK
          121 South Broad Street, 9th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107

               - and -  

          Michael D. Gottsch, Esq.
          CHIMICLES AND TIKELLIS LLP
          One Haverford Center
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041-0100

               - and -  

          Donald R. Hall, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX AND KILSHEIMER
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022

               - and -  

          Steven Michael Hayes, Esq.
          HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN SHERIDAN FISHER & HAYES LLP
          112 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016

               - and -  

          Steven Randall Hood, Esq.
          MCGOWAN HOOD & FELDER
          1539 Healthcare Drive
          Rock Hill, SC 29732

               - and -  

          Walter J. Lack, Esq.
          ENGSTROM LIPSCOMB & LACK
          10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4107

               - and -  

          Karen Jennifer Marcus, Esq.
          FINKLESTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          1050 30th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20007

               - and -  

          Deirdre Shelton McCool, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH
          PO Box 1806
          Charleston, SC 29402

               - and -  

          Chad A. McGowan, Esq.
          MCGOWAN HOOD & FELDER
          1539 Healthcare Drive
          Rock Hill, SC 29732

               - and -  

          Mark J.R. Merkle, Esq.
          KRIEG DEVAULT LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 2800
          Indianapolis, IN 46204

               - and -  

          Stephen G. Morrison, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH
          P O Box 11070
          Columbia, SC 29211

               - and -  

          Marc T. Quigley, Esq.
          KRIEG DEVAULT LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 2800
          Indianapolis, IN 46204

               - and -  

          Elizabeth A. Shonson, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN AND ROBBINS
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432-4809

               - and -  

          David L. Woloshin, Esq.
          WOLOSHIN AND KILLINO
          1800 John F Kennedy Boulevard, 11th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2925
          

MICHAEL FOODS: Dismissal Plea for Two Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Foods, Inc.'s motions to dismiss two consolidated amended
class-action complaint remains pending, according to the
company's Nov.13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct.3, 2009.

In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class-action lawsuits were
filed in various federal courts against the company and several
other defendants who are producers of shell eggs, manufacturers
of processed egg products, and egg industry organizations,
alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws in
connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and
processed-egg products.

Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide classes of direct and
indirect purchasers, and allege that defendants conspired to
reduce the supply of eggs by participating in animal husbandry,
egg-export and other programs of various egg-industry
associations.

In December 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the transfer of all cases to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

Subsequently, the direct-purchaser and indirect-purchaser
plaintiffs each filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint.

On April 30, 2009, the company filed motions to be dismissed from
each CAC, and joined other defendants in motions for dismissal of
both CACs.

As of Nov. 13, 2009, there had been no ruling on these motions.

Michael Foods, Inc. -- http://www.michaelfoods.com/-- is one of
the leading US producers of shell eggs and value-added egg
products (frozen, liquid, pre-cooked, dried).  It has other
operations, but eggs account for 70% of its sales.  The spuds
come in with its Northern Star subsidiary, which pre-shreds and
mashes potatoes.  The company's Crystal Farms subsidiary
packages and distributes cheese, butter and other dairy
products. Michael's customers include food processors,
foodservice distributors, and retail grocery stores throughout
North America, as well as in the Far East, South America, and
Europe. Investment firm, Thomas H. Lee Partners, owns almost 90%
of the company.


NOVASTAR FIN'L: Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Missouri Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit affirmed the
judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri's dismissal of a consolidated amended putative class
action complaint against Novastar Financial, 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.

In February 2007, a number of substantially similar putative
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.

The complaints name the company and three of its former and
current executive officers as defendants and generally allege,
among other things, that the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the company's business and
financial results.

The plaintiffs purport to have brought the actions on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
common stock during the period May 4, 2006 through Feb. 20,
2007.

Following consolidation of the actions, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed on Oct. 19, 2007.

On Dec. 29, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss all of
plaintiffs' claims.

On June 4, 2008, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaints
without leave to amend.

The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of the Court's ruling.

On Sept. 1, 2009 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit
affirmed the judgment of the District Court.

NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/--
is engaged in operating as a non-conforming residential mortgage
portfolio manager.  The company previously originated,
purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced
residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed
securities.  It retained, thorough the mortgage securities
investment portfolio, interests in the nonconforming loans,
originated and purchased, and through the servicing platform,
serviced all of the loans in which it retained interests.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company discontinued
the mortgage lending operations and sold the mortgage servicing
rights, which subsequently resulted in the abandonment of the
servicing operations.


NOVASTAR FIN'L: Continues to Defend Claims in New York Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc. continues to defend any claims asserted
in relation to a putative class action lawsuit filed against J.P.
Morgan Acceptance Corp.

On May 6, 2008, the company received a letter written on behalf
of J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acceptance Corp. and certain affiliates
demanding indemnification for claims asserted against Morgan in
a case entitled, "Plumbers & Pipefitters Local #562 Supplemental
Plan and Trust v. J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corp. et al.," filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau.

The case seeks class action certification for alleged violations
by Morgan of sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
on behalf of all persons who purchased certain categories of
mortgage backed securities issued by Morgan in 2006 and 2007.

Morgan's indemnity demand alleges that any liability it might
have to plaintiffs would be based, in part, upon alleged
misrepresentations made by the company with respect to certain
mortgages that make up a portion of the collateral for the
securities at 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.

NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/--
is engaged in operating as a non-conforming residential mortgage
portfolio manager.  The company previously originated,
purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced
residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed
securities.  It retained, thorough the mortgage securities
investment portfolio, interests in the nonconforming loans,
originated and purchased, and through the servicing platform,
serviced all of the loans in which it retained interests.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company discontinued
the mortgage lending operations and sold the mortgage servicing
rights, which subsequently resulted in the abandonment of the
servicing operations.


NOVASTAR FIN'L: Wants N.J. Carpenters' Health Fund Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss an amended
purported class-action complaint filed by the New Jersey
Carpenters' Health Fund, 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 May 21, 2008, a purported class-action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated.

Defendants in the case include NovaStar Mortgage Funding
Corporation and its individual directors, several securitization
trusts sponsored by the company, and several unaffiliated
investment banks and credit rating agencies.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and plaintiff has filed a motion to remand
the case to state court.

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by
making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that
served as collateral for securities purchased by plaintiff and
the purported class members.

Pursuant to a stipulation, the company has not yet filed its
initial responsive pleading, and discovery is not yet underway.

On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by
making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that
served as collateral for securities purchased by plaintiff and
the purported class members.

On Aug. 31, 2009 the company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims.

NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/--
is engaged in operating as a non-conforming residential mortgage
portfolio manager.  The company previously originated,
purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced
residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed
securities.  It retained, thorough the mortgage securities
investment portfolio, interests in the nonconforming loans,
originated and purchased, and through the servicing platform,
serviced all of the loans in which it retained interests.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company discontinued
the mortgage lending operations and sold the mortgage servicing
rights, which subsequently resulted in the abandonment of the
servicing operations.


NOVASTAR FIN'L: Appeal of 401(k) Plan Suit Certification Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc., continues to appeal the class
certification order in the lawsuit filed in relation to the
company's 401(k) plan.

On July 7, 2008, plaintiff Jennifer Jones filed a purported
class action case in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri against the company, certain of its former
and current officers, and unnamed members of its "Retirement
Committee."

Plaintiff, a former employee of the company, seeks class-action
certification on behalf of all persons who were participants in
or beneficiaries of the company's 401(k) plan from May 4, 2006
until Nov. 15, 2007 and whose accounts included investments in
its common stock.

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages alleging that the company's
common stock was an inappropriately risky investment option for
retirement savings, and that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by allowing investment of some of the assets contained in
the 401(k) plan to be made in the company's common stock.

On Nov. 12, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss which
was denied by the Court on Feb. 11, 2009.

On April 6, 2009 the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

The company sought permission from the 8th Circuit Court of
Appeals to appeal the order granting class certification.  On
May 11, 2009, the Court of Appeals granted the company
permission to appeal the class certification order.

No further developments 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.

NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/--
is engaged in operating as a non-conforming residential mortgage
portfolio manager.  The company previously originated,
purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced
residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed
securities.  It retained, thorough the mortgage securities
investment portfolio, interests in the nonconforming loans,
originated and purchased, and through the servicing platform,
serviced all of the loans in which it retained interests.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company discontinued
the mortgage lending operations and sold the mortgage servicing
rights, which subsequently resulted in the abandonment of the
servicing operations.


POWERCOR: Australian Bushfire Victims Sue Electric Company
----------------------------------------------------------
ABC Western Victoria reports that a group of victims of the
Horsham bushfire on Black Saturday bushfires are taking legal
action against power company Powercor.

Lawyers for the group have served a writ on the company in the
Supreme Court in Horsham, seeking compensation for loss and
damage.

The Bushfires Royal Commission has heard that powerlines sparked
the fire on Black Saturday.

The group's lawyer:

          Brendan Pendergast
          MADDENS
          1a Liebig Street
          PO Box 320
          Warrnambool Victoria 3280
          AUSTRALIA
          Telephone: (03) 5560 2035

said they will accuse Powercor of negligence, by failing to
properly maintain its assets.

"On behalf of the fire victim my firm is making many allegations
of negligence against Powercor in relation to its failure to
maintain safe and appropriate standards of inspection and
maintenance to the Remlaw spur line."

The case is expected to go to court next year, ABC reports.


PRARIE SOUTH: Canadian School District Faces Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lyndsay McCready at The Moose Jaw Times Herald reports that the
Prairie South School Division has been added to the number of
school divisions in Saskatchewan facing a class-action lawsuit.

The lawsuit came forth after a parent in Regina made an inquiry
about a textbook charge she received from their child's school.

Tony Merchant, a Regina layer with the Merchant Law Group, said
because Saskatchewan Law states that kindergarten to Grade 12
education is free, if a student is taking a core class that is
required to obtain a high school diploma, the school can not
charge for required supplies for that class.

"The school boards started to charge small sums around 15 to 20
years ago (for recreational activities and such) and those types
of charges are permissible, provided it doesn't deprive someone
of getting an education.

"But if you are required to take a cooking class (for example) in
order to get a Grade 12 diploma and in that class you are
required to work from a cook book, the schools are not permitted
by law to charge a student for that text."


PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Auto Policyholders Sue Insurer in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Progressive Direct Insurance
Co. steers policyholders to auto repair shops that agree to
reduce the insurer's costs "without regard to the interests,
rights, and safety of the insureds," a class action claims in Los
Angeles Superior Court.


SILICON STORAGE: Suit Challenges Technology Resource Transaction
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Directors of Silicon Storage
Technology are selling the company too cheaply to Technology
Resource Holding and Prophet Equity, for $201 million, though the
company reported revenue of $316 million in 2008, shareholders
say in Santa Clara County Court, Calif.

A copy of the Complaint in Fisher v. Silicon Storage Technology,
Inc., et al., Case No. 109CV157444 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa
Clara Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/24/SCASST.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One California Plaza
          300 South Grand Ave., Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-617-1200

               - and -  

          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          Anne Marie Vu, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: 212-594-5300


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Court Approves Agreement Dismissing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
approved an agreement between SS&C Technologies, Inc. and the
plaintiffs to a dismissal of the class action and verified
derivative complaint, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On May 1, 2009, the company and its parent, SS&C Technologies
Holdings, Inc. were served with a class action and verified
derivative complaint filed against the company and its parent,
and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York in In re Tremont Securities Law, State Law
and Insurance Litigation.

On June 4, 2009, we filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
claims.

On Sept. 11, 2009, the court approved an agreement between the
company and its parent, and the plaintiffs to a dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims against the company without prejudice.

The dismissal was subject to the execution of a tolling agreement
between the company, its parent, and the plaintiffs tolling the
statute of limitations on the plaintiffs' claims until Dec. 31,
2009.

The plaintiffs' derivative claims against the company and its
parent alleged breach of fiduciary duty and professional
negligence in the duties as administrator to two of the Rye group
of funds, which the plaintiffs alleged provided Bernard L. Madoff
with infusions of assets and were operated through defendant
Tremont Group Holdings, Inc. as part of the MassMutual Financial
Group.

The plaintiffs' complaint sought class certification,
compensatory damages against all defendants, jointly and
severally, prejudgment interest, punitive damages and costs.

SS&C Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.ssctech.com/--is a  
provider of software products and software-enabled services to
help financial services providers to automate business processes
and manage their information processing requirements.  The
company's portfolio of software products and software-enabled
services helps automate and integrate front-office functions,
such as trading and modeling, middle-office functions, such as
portfolio management and reporting, and back-office functions,
such as accounting, performance measurement, reconciliation,
reporting, processing and clearing.  The company provides its
solutions globally to more than 4,500 clients, principally within
the institutional asset management, alternative investment
management and financial institutions sectors.  In addition, its
clients include commercial lenders, corporate treasury groups,
insurance and pension funds, financial markets, municipal finance
groups and real estate property managers.



SYSTEMAX INC: Tully's Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against Tully's, a subsidiary of Systemax Inc., remains
pending in court, 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 December 2007, a lawsuit was filed against Tully's in
California state court by a former store employee alleging that
Tully's failed to provide meal and rest periods for its
employees.

The company anticipate thats the plaintiff will seek class action
certification on behalf of all hourly employees in Tully's
California stores.

The plaintiff is seeking damages, restitution, injunctive relief,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

Similar lawsuits alleging missed meal and rest periods have been
filed in California against many other companies.

Systemax Inc. -- http://www.systemax.com/-- is a direct marketer  
of brand name and private-label products.  The company's
operations are organized in three business segments: Technology
Products, Industrial Products and Hosted Software.  Technology
Products segment sells computers, computer supplies and consumer
electronics, which are marketed in North America and Western
Europe.  Except for certain personal computer (PC) products that
the Company assembles themselves and sells under the trademarks
Systemax and Ultra, substantially all of its products are
manufactured by other companies.  The company also sells certain
computer-related products manufactured for them to its own design
under the trademarks Global, GlobalIndustrial.com and Nexel.
Industrial products accounted for 8% of the company's net sales
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. On Jan. 10, 2008, the
Company acquired CompUSA's e-commerce business and 16 of its
retail leases and related fixtures.


TALON INTERNATIONAL: Final Fairness Hearing Set for December 10
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has set a final fairness hearing on the settlement of the
purported shareholder class-action suit, Huberman v. Tag-It
Pacific, Inc., et al., for Dec. 7, 2009, according to Talon
International Inc.'s Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

Talon International was formerly Tag-It Pacific.

On Oct. 12, 2005, the shareholder class-action complaint was
filed against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, alleging claims under Section
10(b) and Section 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934,as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's publicly traded securities during the period from Nov.
14, 2003, to Aug. 12, 2005.

On Jan. 23, 2006, the court appointed Seth Huberman as lead
plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
March 13, 2006.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the company's financial situation
and its relationship with certain of its large customers during
the purported class period.

The suit purports to state claims under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5
and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
which motion was denied by the court on July 17, 2006.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Court established a trial date of May 1,
2007, and ordered completion of discovery by March 19, 2007.

On Feb. 20, 2007, the Court denied class certification.  The
plaintiff has moved the court to reconsider the ruling, and also
sought to intervene for a new plaintiff to pursue class
certification.

Both of those motions were denied on April 2, 2007.  In
addition, the same day the Court granted the company's and the
other defendants' motion for summary judgment -- April 5, 2007
-- the court entered judgment in favor of all the defendants.

On April 30, 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and
his opening appellate brief was filed on Oct. 15, 2007.  The
company's brief was filed on Nov. 28, 2007.

The Ninth Circuit held oral arguments on Oct. 23, 2008.

On Jan. 16, 2009, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished
memorandum, instructing the District Court to certify a class,
reversing the District Court's grant of summary judgment, and
remanding for further  proceedings consistent with its decision.
The District Court has scheduled a status conference for May 4,
2009 (Class Action Reporter, April 28, 2009).

The District Court has rescheduled the status conference for
June 15, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, June 8, 2009).

On July 31, 2009, the parties entered into a stipulation  of
settlement intended to settle the matter and result in its
dismissal with prejudice.

The total settlement proceeds of $5.75 million are to be paid in
full by the company's insurers without any contribution from the
company or individual defendants.  The Court set a  hearing for
preliminary approval of the settlement on Aug. 17, 2009.

On Aug. 24, 2009, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.

Notice has been provided to class members and the Court has set a
final fairness hearing on the settlement for Dec. 7, 2009.

The suit is Huberman, et al. v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 05-CV-7352 (C.D. Calif.) (Real, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
         Wolf Popper
         845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-759-4600

               - and -  

         Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -  

         Jules Brody, Esq.
         Stull Stull & Brody
         6 E. 45th St., 4th Fl.
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-687-7230

               - and -  

         Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
         Wolf Popper
         845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-759-4600
         E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com

               - and -  

         Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP
         1801 Avenue of the Stars Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         E-mail: pbinkow@glancylaw.com

              - and -

         Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
         Stull Stull and Brody
         10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Phone: 310-209-2468
         E-mail: service@ssbla.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Panteha Abdollahi, Esq.
         Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker
         695 Town Center Drive, 17th Floor
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Phone: 714-668-6200
         E-mail: pantehaabdollahi@paulhastings.com


TEAM WORK TRADING: Recalls 1,500 More Lead-Containing Pendants
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Team Work Trading, of Los Angeles, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,500 Children's Metal Pendants.  This is in
addition to 1,500 pendants previously recalled in September 2009.  
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The recalled children's pendants contain high levels of lead.
Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse
health effects.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves eleven types of metal pendants sold with
silver-colored chains. The pendants feature symbols from the
following animations/cartoons: "Bleach," "Death Note," "Naruto"
and "One Piece."  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10049.html

The recalled pendants were manufactured in China and sold at The
Teamwork Trading Store in Los Angeles, Calif. and other toys
stores and gift shops nationwide from November 2008 through March
2009 for between $3 and $4.

Consumer should immediately take the recalled pendants away from
children and contact Team Work Trading to receive a full refund
or replacement product.  For additional information, contact Team
Work Trading collect at (213) 680-4489 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday.




UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Defends Suit Over Filter Sales in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
Laboratories, Inc., continues to defend a purported class-action
in the Superior Court of California, for the County of Los
Angeles.

On Jan. 12, 2009, Champion, but not United Components, was named
as one of ten defendants in an action filed in the Superior
Court of California, for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of
a purported class of direct and indirect purchasers of
aftermarket filters.

On March 5, 2009, one of the defendants filed a notice of
removal to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, and then subsequently requested that the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfer this case to the
Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings.

No further developments on the case were reported in the
company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement
parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four
primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original
equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up 40.1% of
sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling
products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products.


UNITED COMPONENTS: Suit on Filter Sales in Ontario Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
Laboratories, Inc., still faces a putative class-action suit
related to the sale of aftermarket filters in Ontario, Canada.

Champion, but not United Components, was named as one of 14
defendants in a class action filed on May 21, 2008, in Ontario,
Canada.

The action alleges civil conspiracy, intentional interference
with economic interests, and conspiracy violations under the
Canadian Competition Act related to the sale of aftermarket
filters.

The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the 14
defendants in the amount of $150 million in general damages and
$15 million in punitive damages.

The plaintiff is also seeking authorization to have the matter
proceed as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been
ruled on.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 13, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement
parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four
primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original
equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up 40.1% of
sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling
products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products.


UNITED COMPONENTS: Lawsuits Over Filter Sales Pending in Quebec
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
Laboratories, Inc., faces a putative class-action suit related
to the sale of aftermarket filters in Quebec, Canada.

Champion, but not United Components, was named as one of five
defendants in a class action filed in Quebec, Canada.

The action alleges conspiracy violations under the Canadian
Competition Act and violations of the obligation to act in good
faith (contrary to art. 6 of the Civil Code of Quebec) related to
the sale of aftermarket filters.

The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the five
defendants in the amount of $5.0 million in compensatory damages
and $1.0 million in punitive damages.

The plaintiff is seeking authorization to have the matter
continue as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been
ruled on.

No further developments were reported in the company's Nov. 13,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement
parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four
primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original
equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up 40.1% of
sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling
products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products.


UNITED COMPONENTS: Status Conference in Unit's Suit Set for Jan.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
scheduled the status conference in an amended purported class-
action complaint, which name United Components, Inc.'s wholly
owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories Inc., as defendant, for
Jan. 13, 2010, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The class action alleges conspiracy violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, related to aftermarket oil,
air, fuel and transmission filters.

                   Direct Purchaser Litigation

As of April 21, 2009, the company and Champion have been named
as two of multiple defendants in 23 complaints originally filed
in the District of Connecticut, the District of New Jersey, the
Middle District of Tennessee and the Northern District of
Illinois, related to aftermarket oil, air, fuel and transmission
filters.

Eight of these complaints also named The Carlyle Group as a
defendant, but those plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Carlyle
from each of those actions without prejudice.

Champion, but not United Components, was also named as a
defendant in 13 virtually identical actions originally filed in
the Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois, and the
District of New Jersey.

All of these complaints are styled as putative class actions on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased aftermarket
filters in the U.S. directly from the defendants, or any of
their predecessors, parents, subsidiaries or affiliates, at any
time during the period from Jan. 1, 1999 to the present.

Each case seeks damages, including statutory treble damages, an
injunction against future violations, costs and attorney's fees.

On Nov. 26, 2008, all of the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  This complaint names Champion
as one of multiple defendants, but it does not name United
Components.  The complaint is styled as a putative class action
and alleges conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act.  The direct purchaser plaintiffs seek damages, including
statutory treble damages, an injunction against future
violations, costs and attorney's fees.  On Feb. 2, 2009,
Champion filed its answer to the direct purchasers' Consolidated
Amended Complaint.

                 Indirect Purchaser Litigation

United Components and Champion were also named as two of
multiple defendants in 17 similar complaints originally filed in
the District of Connecticut, the Northern District of
California, the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern
District of New York by plaintiffs who claim to be indirect
purchasers of aftermarket filters.

Two of these complaints also named The Carlyle Group as a
defendant, but the plaintiffs in both of those actions
voluntarily dismissed Carlyle without prejudice.

Champion, but not United Components, was also named in three
similar actions originally filed in the Eastern District of
Tennessee, the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern
District of California.

These complaints allege conspiracy violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and/or violations of state antitrust, consumer
protection and unfair competition law.

They are styled as putative class actions on behalf of all
persons or entities who acquired indirectly aftermarket filters
manufactured and/or distributed by one or more of the
defendants, their agents or entities under their control, at any
time between Jan. 1, 1999 and the present; with the exception of
three complaints, which each allege a class period from Jan. 1,
2002 to the present, and one complaint which alleges a class
period from the "earliest legal permissible date" to the
present.

The complaints seek damages, including statutory treble damages,
an injunction against future violations, disgorgement of
profits, costs and attorney's fees.

On Dec. 1, 2008, all of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs,
except Gasoline and Automotive Service Dealers of America
("GASDA"), filed a Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint.
This complaint names Champion as one of multiple defendants, but
it does not name United Components.  The complaint is styled as
a putative class action and alleges conspiracy violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and violations of state antitrust,
consumer protection and unfair competition law.  The indirect
purchaser plaintiffs seek damages, including statutory treble
damages, penalties and punitive damages where available, an
injunction against future violations, disgorgement of profits,
costs and attorney's fees.  On Feb. 2, 2009, Champion and the
other defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint.  On that same date,
Champion, United Components and the other defendants jointly
filed a motion to dismiss the GASDA complaint.

                            JPML Order

On Aug. 18, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring the U.S. direct and indirect
purchaser aftermarket filters cases to the Northern District of
Illinois for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings
before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.

Pursuant to a stipulated agreement between the parties, all
defendants produced limited initial discovery on Jan. 30, 2009.

The Court has ordered that all further discovery shall be stayed
until after it rules on the motions to dismiss.

On April 13, 2009, GASDA voluntarily dismissed United Components
from its case without prejudice.

Pursuant to a stipulated agreement between the parties, all
defendants produced limited initial discovery on Jan. 30, 2009.  
The Court has ordered that all further discovery shall be stayed
until after it rules on the motions to dismiss, according to the
company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2009.  

On Nov. 5, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted the motion to dismiss the GASDA
complaint.

Also on Nov. 5, 2009, the Illinois District Court denied in part
and granted in part the motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Indirect Purchaser Complaint.

In particular, the Illinois District Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss Count II - the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' nationwide claim for unjust enrichment - limited the
damages periods for claims based on the antitrust laws of
Nebraska, New Hampshire, Utah and Wyoming and granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs'
consumer protection law claims under the laws of Kansas, Maine,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, New York and Rhode Island.

Champion and the other defendants must file their answer to the
remaining claims in the Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint
by Dec. 28, 2009 and the Illinois District Court scheduled a
status conference for Jan. 13, 2010.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement
parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four
primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original
equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up 40.1% of
sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling
products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NORTHWEST PIPE: Pomerantz Filed Shareholder Suit in W.D. Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Haflich at AMM.com reports that a New York law firm appears
to be first in court with a class-action lawsuit against
Northwest Pipe Co. in the wake of the company's recent disclosure
of an accounting probe at the producer of water transmission pipe
and tubular goods.

Richard v. Northwest Pipe Company, et al., Case No. 09-cv-05724
(W.D. Wash.) (Leighton, J.), seeks unspecified damages as well as
attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.  A copy of the
Complaint is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/25/SCANWPipe.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Drachler, Esq.
          ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING
          1904 3rd Ave., Suite 1030
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 223-2053

               - and -  

          Marc I. Gross, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100

               - and -  

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          One North LaSalle Street, Suite 2225
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181

               - and -  

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150


PROVIDENT ENERGY: Keller Rohrback Files Shareholder Suit in Idaho
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and Greener Burke Shoemaker P.A. filed a
class action lawsuit in the District of Idaho on behalf of a
class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Provident Energy 1, LP, Provident Resources 1, LP,
Provident Energy 2, LP, Provident Energy 3, LP, Shale Royalties
II, Inc., Shale Royalties 3, LLC, Shale Royalties 4, Inc., Shale
Royalties 5, Inc., Shale Royalties 6, Inc., Shale Royalties 7,
Inc., Shale Royalties 8, Inc., Shale Royalties 9, Inc., Shale
Royalties 10, Inc., Shale Royalties 12, Inc., Shale Royalties 14,
Inc., Shale Royalties 15, Inc., Shale Royalties 16, Inc., Shale
Royalties 17, Inc., Shale Royalties 18, Inc., Shale Royalties 19,
Inc., Shale Royalties 20, Inc., or Shale Royalties 21, Inc., from
Securities America, Inc., Summit Retirement Advisors LLC, Bradley
K. Hofhines, or any of their affiliates between November 25,
2006, and the present.  The complaint is also brought under the
Idaho Uniform Securities Act ("IUSA") and the Idaho Consumer
Protection Act ("ICPA") on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities in one or more of the
Provident Entities on or after November 25, 2004, who reside
within or purchased or otherwise acquired the Provident
Securities within the State of Idaho, or from Defendants Bradley
K. Hofhines or Summit Retirement Advisors LLC, or any of their
Idaho affiliates.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
violated federal securities laws and the Idaho Uniform Securities
Act by: (1) offering and selling Provident Securities in
violation of state and federal registration requirements; and (2)
providing materially untrue and misleading offering materials
regarding Provident Securities. The complaint also alleges that
Defendants and their affiliates violated the Idaho Consumer
Protection Act by engaging in unfair and deceptive practices in
the offer and sale of the Provident Securities.

According to the lawsuit, the private placement memoranda and
related offering materials ("PPMs") pursuant to which the
Provident Securities were offered and sold were materially false
and misleading because they misrepresented and omitted material
facts pertaining to the terms of the offering and the use of
funds, including that certain investments were kept afloat via
improper intra-fund transfers, that investor funds raised in
later offerings were used to pay "dividends" and "returns of
capital" to earlier Provident investors, and other material facts
pertaining to the terms of the securities and the risks of
investment in the Provident Securities. The lawsuit also alleges
that the Provident Securities should have been registered under
federal securities laws and Idaho state law, but were not.

The case is Toomey, et al. v. Hofhines, et al., Case No.
09-cv-00613 (D. Id.) (Lodge, J.).  A copy of the complaint filed
in this action is available from the Court, or can be obtained
from Keller Rohrback L.L.P. or Greener Burke Shoemaker P.A.

If you purchased Provident Securities stock during the Class
Period, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff no later than sixty (60) days from the date of this
notice.

A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be
appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class
member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that the class member will adequately represent the class.
Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Keller Rohrback or
Greener Burke Shoemaker, or other counsel of your choice, to
serve as your counsel in this action.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact any member of our team: (1) Keller Rohrback L.L.P., at
1201 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, by telephone, toll-
free at (800) 776-6044 (paralegal Bob McFadden or attorneys Mike
Woerner, Beth Leland or Havila Unrein), via e-mail at
investor@kellerrohrback.com, or online at
http://www.krclassaction.com/ All e-mail correspondence should  
make reference to the Provident Securities Litigation; or (2)
Greener Burke Shoemaker P.A., at 950 W. Bannock Street, Suite
900, Boise, Idaho 83702, by telephone at (208) 319-2600
(attorneys Richard Greener or Soo Kang), or via email at
investor@greenerlaw.com.

Keller Rohrback is one of America's leading law firms handling
securities-related litigation. We are committed to helping
investors protect their investment options. Keller Rohrback
serves as lead and co-lead counsel in numerous class action
cases. Keller Rohrback has successfully provided class action
representation for over a decade. Its trial lawyers have obtained
judgments and settlements on behalf of clients in excess of seven
billion dollars.

Greener Burke Shoemaker P.A. has some of the most experienced
litigators in all of Idaho, ranking among the most capable trial
firms in the Pacific Northwest. The attorneys at Greener Burke
Shoemaker are skilled plaintiff counsel in complex, high-stakes
litigation.


SUNPOWER CORP: Howard G. Smith Files Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of
SunPower Corporation (Nasdaq:SPWRA) (Nasdaq:SPWRB), has filed a
class action lawsuit in United States District Court on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
SunPower securities between April 17, 2008, and November 16,
2009, inclusive.  The class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The Complaint charges SunPower and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
SunPower designs, manufactures and delivers high-performance
solar electric systems worldwide for residential, commercial and
utility-scale power plant customers. The Complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded and failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1)
that the Company made unsubstantiated accounting entries during
the Class Period; (2) that, as a result, the Company's financial
results were overstated during the Class Period; (3) that the
Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (4) that the
Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5)
as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 16, 2009, SunPower shocked investors when it
announced an internal investigation by its Audit Committee of
certain unsubstantiated accounting entries related to cost of
goods sold in the Company's Philippines operations. SunPower
disclosed that the Company's Audit Committee concluded that the
Company's previously issued interim financial statements for each
of the 2009 quarterly periods, the previously reported financial
results for the fiscal year ending December 28, 2008, the
financial information in its quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for
the 2009 quarters, the financial information in the 2008 annual
report on Form 10-K, and the guidance provided by the Company for
the 2009 fiscal year, should no longer be relied upon. This news
caused SunPower's Class A common stock to decline $5.04 per
share, or approximately 18.51%, to close on November 17, 2009, at
$22.19 per share, and SunPower's Class B common stock declined
$4.43 per share, approximately 18.54%, to close on November 17,
2009, at $19.47 per share, on heavy trading volume.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Until a
class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you
retain one.  If you purchased SunPower securities between April
17, 2008, and November 16, 2009, you have certain rights, and
have until January 19, 2010, to move for lead plaintiff status.
To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this
time, and you may retain counsel of your choice.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215)638-4847
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
          http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


VERASUN ENERGY: Dyer & Berens Files Shareholder Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP -- http://www.DyerBerens.com/-- has filed a  
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of VeraSun Energy Corp. (PINKSHEETS: VSUNQ) between
March 12, 2008, and September 16, 2008, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the court
no later than January 11, 2010. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel:

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

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

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's true financial condition, business and prospects.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose the following adverse facts, among others:
(i) VeraSun was, in part, a speculative commodities trader in
addition to an ethanol producer; (ii) VeraSun engaged in
speculative and risky derivate transactions that exposed the
Company to substantial financial and liquidity risk; (iii)
VeraSun experienced substantial losses on speculative derivative
transactions causing margin pressures on the Company; (iv) as a
result of margin pressures from bad speculative derivative
transactions, the Company sold out of a large short position in
corn and incurred substantial losses; (v) the Company entered
into highly risky "accumulator" contracts that obligated VeraSun
to purchase increasing amounts of corn after the price of corn
fell in price per bushel; and (vi) VeraSun's financial condition
and especially its liquidity were negatively impacted as a result
of speculative commodity transactions, ultimately causing the
Company to file for bankruptcy.

On September 16, 2008, VeraSun announced that it commenced a
public offering of 20 million shares of its common stock to raise
money for "general corporate purposes." The true purpose of this
public offering was to raise capital in an effort to prevent a
disastrous impact from the huge losses experienced by the Company
as a result of its speculative trading and risky bets on the
price of corn. In response to the Company's announcement on
September 16, 2008, shares of the Company's stock fell $3.81 per
share, or 70%, from a close of $5.22 per share before the
announcement, to close at $1.41 per share on September 17, 2008,
on extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of VeraSun
investors. The plaintiff is represented by Dyer & Berens LLP,
which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions
involving financial fraud. The firm's extensive experience in
securities litigation, particularly in cases brought under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, has contributed to the
recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
investors.

                            *********

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  * * *